Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00275-CMA-KMT
09-27-2012
JOHN NASIOUS, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Denver Sheriffs [sic] Department, SHERIFF STRONG, Denver Sheriffs [sic] Department, in his official and individual capacity, NURSE ROSIE PAGLIANO, Denver Sheriffs [sic] Department, in her official and individual capacity, Defendants.
Judge Christine M. Arguello
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING AUGUST 28, 2012 RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the August 28, 2012 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya, in which she recommended that the three pending summary judgment motions be granted. (Doc. # 214.) The motions pending are Defendant City and County of Denver's Combined Summary Judgment Motion and Brief (Doc. # 181), Defendant Sheriff Strong's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Brief (Doc. # 182), and Defendant Nurse Rosie Pagliano's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 187.) The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 83), filed October 12, 2010.
The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 102 at 16-17.) On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff John Nasious requested a twenty-five day extension of time to respond to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 215.) The Court granted that request in part, and ordered that Plaintiff shall have "to and including September 26, 2012, within which to respond to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation." (Doc. # 216.) September 26, 2012 has now passed and Plaintiff has yet to submit objections to the Recommendation.
"In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[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").
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings, including the three motions for summary judgment, Plaintiff's combined response, Defendants' three replies, and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations regarding the motions for summary judgment are correct and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Defendant City and County of Denver's Combined Summary Judgment Motion and Brief (Doc. # 181) is GRANTED;
(2) Defendant Strong's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Brief (Doc. # 182) is GRANTED; and
(3) Defendant Pagliano's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 187) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and thus, such an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis.
In light of the above, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
BY THE COURT:
____________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge