Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02302-PAB-KMT
08-04-2011
JOHN M. MEYER, JR., Plaintiff, v. MR. FERGUSON (Individual Capacity) Sgt., DRDC Infirmary, MR. MEIGGS (Individual Capacity) Intake Sgt., CTCF, JOHN DOE 1 (Individual and Official Capacity) Correctional Officer, CH 4, JOHN DOE 2 (Individual and Official Capacity) C/O, CTCF Reception, and DR. DARROW (Individual and Official Capacity) Medical Doctor, CTCF, 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 June 29, 2011 [Docket No. 90]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on June 29, 2011. 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. 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, I have reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
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).
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 90] is ACCEPTED.
2. All claims against defendant Darrow are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for lack of service.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge