Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02302-PAB-KMT
09-04-2012
JOHN M. MEYER, JR., Plaintiff, v. MR. FERGUSON (Individual capacity) Sgt., DRDC Infirmary, MR. MEIGGS (Individual capacity) Intake Sgt., CTCF, OFFICER LUIS GARCIA, CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION UNIT (individual and official capacity), and CORRECTIONS OFFICER MULAY (individual and official capacity), Defendants.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on August 14, 2012 [Docket No. 125]. 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 August 14, 2012. 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) ("[i]t 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, it is
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).
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 125] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [123] is GRANTED, and judgment is entered in favor of defendants on all of plaintiff's remaining claims.
3. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).
BY THE COURT:
____________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge