Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-0929-RBJ-KMT
03-29-2012
JEREMY K. POTTER, Plaintiff, v. C/O JOHN DOE #1, of DRDC, in his personal capacity, C/O JOHN DOE #2, of DRDC, in his personal capacity, Nurse JANE DOE, of DRDC, in her personal capacity, Sergeant JOHN DOE, of DRDC, in his personal capacity, Lieutenant JOHN DOE, of DRDC, in his personal capacity, Nurse APRIL D. CALDWELL, of CMRC, in her personal and/or official capacity, and Dentist CUNNINGHAM, of CMRC, in his personal and/or official capacity, Defendants.
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATIONS
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the December 21, 2011 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya [Doc. #105]. Judge Tafoya recommended that defendant Cunningham's Motion to Dismiss [#79] be granted, and that defendant April Caldwell's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#88] also be granted. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. On January 3, 2012 the Court received Mr. Potter's copy of the recommendation marked as "mail returned as undeliverable." [#106]. Concerned that Mr. Potter had not received the recommendation, and that he may have moved from Bent County Correctional Facility, the Court sent the documents to a new address found in the state inmate locator, the CDOC Buena Vista facility. [#109]. On February 6, 2012 Mr. Potter filed a motion for extension of 45 days in which to file objections. [#110]. The Court granted the motion and extended the deadline to March 26, 2012. [#111]. In doing so the Court indicated that "by March 26, 2012 Mr. Potter will have had ample time, no matter when service was effected, to prepare a response. Therefore, no further extension will be granted."
Mr. Potter did not file an objection. "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).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning defendant Cunningham's Motion to Dismiss and defendant Caldwell's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court has also reviewed the magistrate judge's Recommendation. Based on that review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations are well supported, 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 the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [#105] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that defendant Cunningham's Motion to Dismiss [#79] is GRANTED, and that defendant Caldwell's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#88] is GRANTED. All claims against defendants Cunningham and Caldwell are dismissed with prejudice.
BY THE COURT:
_______________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge