Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00410-PAB-MEH
02-21-2012
CRYSTAL SIERRA-GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. C/O HAWKS, ROBBIE BOLTON (SOTMP), PATRICIA MONTEZ (SOTMP), RUDY BACA (CM), and PATRICIA DURAN CM, Defendants.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION IN PART
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on January 30, 2012 [Docket No. 32]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on January 30, 2012. 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. 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, I have reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. However, given plaintiff's indications that she is attempting to exhaust her administrative remedies, the Court will not dismiss her complaint with prejudice. 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 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 32] is accepted in part and rejected in part.
2. This case is dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint [Docket No. 19] is denied as moot.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge