Reynolds v. Dir., Colo. Dep't of Corr.

Full title: JOHNNY L. REYNOLDS, #133703, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR, COLORADO DEPARTMENT…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Mar 12, 2014

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02558-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Mar. 12, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02558-PAB-KMT

03-12-2014

JOHNNY L. REYNOLDS, #133703, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MICHAEL LIND, Captain #3620, CORDOVA, Lieutenant #3191, JONI CORCORAN, Lieutenant #12916, and JOHN REILLY, Correctional Industries Supervisor, Defendants.

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

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 February 13, 2014 [Docket No. 59]. 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 February 14, 2014. 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."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. 59] is ACCEPTED.

2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 44] is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to USCS Fed. R. Civ. Proc. R. 56(b) [Docket No. 56] is DENIED AS MOOT.

4. This case and the claims contained therein are dismissed.

BY THE COURT:

__________

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge