Opinion
Civil Action No. 15-cv-0800-PAB-KMT
11-21-2017
MARK WALTER PAULSEN, Plaintiff, v. DOUG ROBERTS, Medical Monitor, Private Prison Monitoring Unit, CDOC, JERRY STEELE, Private Prison Monitoring Unit, CDOC, RICHARD MADRID, Drug and Alcohol/Addiction Services, KCCC (Kit Carson Correctional Center), PATRICIA HEADLEY, CAC III, Drug and Alcohol/Addiction Services, KCCC, L. MORTIN-EARL, MA, CAC III, Drug and Alcohol/Addiction Services, KCCC, DESIREE ANDREWS, Health Services Administrator, KCCC, KATHY M. WILEY, NP, Health Care Provider, KCCC, KAREN C. MITCHELL, NP, Health Care Provider, KCCC, DAVID R. GROSS, PA, Health Care Provider, KCCC, and SUSAN M. TIONA, MD, Facility Physician, KCCC, Defendants.
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 October 23, 2017 [Docket No. 169]. 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 October 23, 2017. 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. 169] is accepted.
2. Plaintiff's Motion, Requesting a Court Oder Allowing Plaintiff, Paulsen to Excersize [sic] His Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances in the CDOC (SCF) Law-Library [Docket No. 117] is denied.
DATED November 21, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge