Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-02055-NYW-SKC
03-15-2023
MARQUISE LUCAS, Plaintiff, v. J. A. BARNHART, J. WASSELL, PEDRO TORRES-DE LEON, C. WATSON, B. TORRES, V. VIGIL, M. BANUELOS, BATOUCHE, S. EACKER, G. ROMAIN, and R. RICOLCOL, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
Nina Y. Wang United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews issued on February 24, 2023. [Doc. 59]. Judge Crews recommends that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies [Doc. 51] be granted and that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 50] be denied as moot. See [Doc. 59 at 8].
The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the Parties. [Id.]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 24, 2023. See [Doc. 59 at 8]. No Party has objected to the Recommendation and the time to do so has elapsed.
The Court notes that Plaintiff Marquise Lucas did not file a response to the Motion to Dismiss or the Motion for Summary Judgment, despite the previous presiding judge, the Honorable Regina M. Rodriguez, sua sponte granting Mr. Lucas an extension of time to do so. See [Doc. 54]. The docket reflects that the Clerk of the Court set the Court's Order to Mr. Lucas at his address of record at USP Atwater. [Doc. 55]. No change of address has been received from Mr. Lucas since that time, despite Judge Rodriguez's prior explanation that under the Local Rules of this Court, parties are required to give notice to the Court of a change of mailing address no later than five days after the change. [Doc. 48]; D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(c). It is not the Court's responsibility to keep track of Mr. Lucas's address, and mailings to the address of record constitutes effective service. See Faircloth v. Hickenlooper, 758 Fed.Appx. 659, 662 (10th Cir. 2018).
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 Judge'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's note to 1983 amendment. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and a correct application of the facts and the law.
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).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews [Doc. 59] is ADOPTED; (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies [Doc. 51] is GRANTED; (3) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 50] is DENIED as moot; 3 (4) Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on each of Plaintiff's claims; (5) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case; and (6) The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to: Marquise Lucas, #57811-007 ATWATER U.S. PENITENTIARY Inmate Mail/Parcels P.O. BOX 019001 Atwater, CA 95301 Marquise Lucas, #57811-007 Inmate Mail/Parcels USP Victorville 13777 Air Expressway Boulevard Victorville, CA 92394