Rodriguez v. Payler

Full title: RON RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MARK A. PAYLER, in his official capacity…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Aug 25, 2020

Civil Action No. 19-cv-01388-CMA-KMT (D. Colo. Aug. 25, 2020)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 19-cv-01388-CMA-KMT

08-25-2020

RON RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MARK A. PAYLER, in his official capacity, JACK CHRISTENSEN, in his official capacity, and TERRE DAVIS, in his official capacity. Defendants.

Judge Christine M. Arguello

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the August 10, 2020 Recommendation (Doc. # 70) of Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya, wherein she recommends that Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 64) should 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. (Doc. # 70 at 16-17.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Tafoya's Recommendation have been filed by either party.

"[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. 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) (stating that "[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.")).

After reviewing the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Tafoya, in addition to applicable portions of the record and relevant legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:

• Magistrate Judge Tafoya's Recommendation (Doc. # 70) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED as an order of this Court;

• Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 64) is GRANTED;

• Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 63) is DENIED AS MOOT; and

• The Clerk of the Court respectfully is DIRECTED to terminate this case.

DATED: August 25, 2020

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge