Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-02538-PAB-KLM
07-12-2022
ERIN RAMBLER, and M.K., minor, by and through his parent, ERIN RAMLER, Plaintiffs, v. POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, BRIAN KINGSLEY, individually and officially as Superintendent of the Poudre School District, ROB PETTERSON, individually and officially as President of the Poudre School District Board of Education, KRISTEN DRAPER, individually and officially as Vice President of the Poudre School District Board of Education, NATE DONOVAN, individually and officially as Director of the Poudre School District Board of Education, JIM BROKISH, individually and officially as Director of the Poudre School District Board of Education, CAROLYN REED, individually and officially as Director of the Poudre School District Board of Education, DJ ANDERSON, individually and officially as Director of the Poudre School District Board of Education, JESSICA ZAMORA, individually and officially as Director of the Poudre School District Board of Education, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
PHILIP A. BRIMMER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Amended Order and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge filed on June 3, 2022 [Docket No. 34]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 34 at 9-10; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on June 3, 2022. 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.” 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 Amended Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 34] is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. This case is closed.