Session v. Clements

Full title: FRANKY L. SESSION, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY SHERIFF CLEMENTS, in his…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 17, 2017

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02406-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Jan. 17, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02406-PAB-KLM

01-17-2017

FRANKY L. SESSION, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY SHERIFF CLEMENTS, in his individual and official capacity, DEPUTY SHERIFF CAPTAIN ROMERO, in his individual and official capacity, and DEPUTY SHERIFF SERGEANT JORDAN, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix filed on November 14, 2016 [Docket No. 190]. 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 November 14, 2016. Plaintiff requested and the Court granted two extensions of time to file objections. Plaintiff's objections were due on or before January 13, 2017. See Docket No. 200. 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. 190] is ACCEPTED.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket No. 138] is DENIED.

DATED January 17, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge