Opinion
Civil case no. 11-cv-03238-RM-KMT
01-06-2014
SAMUEL M. WALKER, and DIANE H. WALKER, Plaintiffs, v. FRED WEGENER, individual and official capacity, BOBBI PRIESTLY, individual and official capacity, CINDY HARDEY, individual and official capacity, REBECCA BRAMLETT, individual and official capacity, AMY FRANCK, individual and official capacity, JUAN GALLEGOS, individual and official capacity, SGT BROWN, individual and official capacity, PARK COUNTY, JOHN TIGHE, individual and official capacity, DICK HODGES, individual and official capacity, MARK DOWALIBY, individual and official capacity, PARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, JOHN SUTHERS, individual and official capacity, and DEBRA MCLIMANS, individual and official capacity, Defendants.
Judge Raymond P. Moore
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the June 14, 2013 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 67) that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 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. 67 at 14-15.) 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. 67) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED; Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), this Court further CERTIFIES that in forma pauperis status will be denied for the purposes of any and all appeals from this decision. If Plaintiffs file a notice of appeal they also must pay the full appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within 30 days of the court's final order in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 24.
BY THE COURT:
__________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge