Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00952-PAB-NRN
08-13-2020
DOUGLAS C. LEHMAN, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN McKINNON, JAQUES, Correctional Officer Sgt., McCARROLL, Correctional Officer, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter filed on July 7, 2020 [Docket No. 301]. Magistrate Judge Neureiter recommends that the Court grant defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismiss plaintiff's claims. Docket No. 301 at 22. Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that "no genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to [plaintiff's] claims against all three defendants." Id. at 2.
The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on July 7, 2020. No party has objected to the Recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, the Court will accept the magistrate judge's recommendation and grant defendants' motion for summary judgment.
This standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). --------
In addition, plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on "the topic of [failure] to report," see Docket No. 227, which the magistrate judge recommends denying. Docket No. 293 at 13. Plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation. Docket No. 304. However, a movant is entitled to summary judgment when "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Thus, a finding that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on each of plaintiff's claims - a finding that defendants have demonstrated that there is no genuine dispute of fact for trial and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law - necessarily means that plaintiff cannot demonstrate these prerequisites and is not entitled to summary judgment on those same claims. See First Guar. Bank v. Republic Bank, Inc., 2019 WL 4736916, at *11 (D. Utah Sept. 27, 2019) ("Because the court grants summary judgment in favor of [defendant] on both of these claims, [plaintiff's] motions for summary judgment on these same claims is denied."); Info. Network For Responsible Mining (Inform) v. Dep't of Energy, No. 06-cv-02271-REB-CBS, 2008 WL 762248, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2008), as amended (Apr. 30, 2008) (finding that defendant was entitled to summary judgment and, as a result, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on same claims).
Because the resolution of defendants' motion for summary judgment resolves plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that the magistrate judge's recommendation on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 293] is now moot. As a result, plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation [Docket No. 304] will be overruled as moot. See Mathison v. United States, 14-cv-03345-RM-KLM, 2016 WL 695981, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb. 22, 2016) (finding that, because the magistrate judge's recommendation was moot, plaintiff's objections to that recommendation were also moot); Kneen v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 10-cv-01284-CMA-MEH, 2011 WL 1532079, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 20, 2011) (same).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter [Docket No. 301] is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 264] is GRANTED;
3. Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Docket No. 268] is DENIED AS MOOT;
4. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Red Neureiter [Docket No. 293] is DEEMED MOOT;
5. Plaintiff's Objections to Recommendations of Magistraight [sic] Judge for "Failure to Report" Summary Judgment Motion [Docket No. 304] are OVERRULED AS MOOT;
6. Plaintiff Douglas Lehman's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 227] is DENIED;
7. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice; and
8. The case is closed. DATED August 13, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge