Thornton v. Kramer

Full title: DAVID A. THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. SGT. KRAMER, SGT. ADAMIC, and CO O…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Apr 23, 2014

Civil Action No. 12-cv-3152-WJM-MJW (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-3152-WJM-MJW

04-23-2014

DAVID A. THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. SGT. KRAMER, SGT. ADAMIC, and CO O. CHRISTENSON, Defendants.

William J. Martínez

Judge William J. Martínez

ORDER ADOPTING MARCH 11, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on the March 11, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 49) that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 49, at 12.) On March 25, 2014, after receiving no timely objections, the Court construed Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) as a request for an extension of time to file an objection to the Recommendation, and granted an extension of time until April 14, 2014. (ECF No. 51.) Despite this, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been received.

The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and 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. 49) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED; and (3) Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants Sgt. Kramer, Sgt. Adamic, and CO Christenson on all claims. Defendants shall have their costs.

BY THE COURT:

________________

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge