Reneau v. Cardinas

Full title: CHESTER LEE RENEAU, Plaintiff, v. MARY CARDINAS, in her individual…

Court: United States District Court, District of Colorado

Date published: Mar 27, 2023

Civil Action 17-cv-02595-PAB-SKC (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 17-cv-02595-PAB-SKC

03-27-2023

CHESTER LEE RENEAU, Plaintiff, v. MARY CARDINAS, in her individual capacity, JUDY BRIZENDINE, in her individual capacity, and DOCTOR LUIS CABILING, in his individual capacity, 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 to Grant Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute [Docket No. 215]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 215; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on March 7, 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. Recommendation to Grant Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute [Docket No. 215] is ACCEPTED;

2. Defendant Mary Cardinas' Motion to Dismiss, with Prejudice, for Failure to Prosecute [Docket No. 212] is GRANTED;

3. This case is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute; and

4. This case is closed.