Qazi v. Seroski

Full title: SHEHERYAR ALAM QAZI, Plaintiff, v. J. SEROSKI, Physician Assistant, in her…

Court: United States District Court, District of Colorado

Date published: Jun 7, 2023

Civil Action 22-cv-00014-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jun. 7, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 22-cv-00014-PAB-MEH

06-07-2023

SHEHERYAR ALAM QAZI, Plaintiff, v. J. SEROSKI, Physician Assistant, in her individual and official capacities, DR. OBA, Clinical Director, in his individual and official capacities, JOHN/JANE DOES, unknown BOP employees, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 47] filed on May 11, 2023. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 47 at 16-17 n.3; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on May 11, 2023. 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) (“It 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.”¹ 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

1 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. 47] is ACCEPTED;

2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 34] is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice; and

4. This case is closed.