Stewart v. Bloodworth

Full title: MARSHAUN STEWART, Plaintiff, v. BLOODWORTH [sic], Associate Warden…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Feb 6, 2013

Civil Action No. 11-cv-3080-WJM-CBS (D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-3080-WJM-CBS

02-06-2013

MARSHAUN STEWART, Plaintiff, v. BLOODWORTH [sic], Associate Warden, BURTON, Lt., WORKSON [sic], Counselor, and HELICKERSON [sic], Psychological, Defendants.

William J. Martínez

Judge William J. Martínez

ORDER ADOPTING JANUARY 2, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE, GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR DEFAULT,

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on the January 2, 2013 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 82) that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 77) be granted, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot, and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 51) be denied. 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 82, at 13.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been filed by either party.

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ("In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate.").

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 82) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
(2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED, and Judgment on the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 29) shall be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff;
(3) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 51) is DENIED; and
(4) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 61) is DENIED as MOOT.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge