Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-03495-PAB-MEH
01-18-2022
DARUS WILKINS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PALOMINO, in his individual and official capacity, CHRIS CHAVEZ, in his individual and official capacity, KARA KENNEDY, in her individual and official capacity, NITA HUNT, in her individual and official capacity, BRENT PIERCE, in his individual and official capacity, MR. SMITH, in his official capacity, LUKE HOLLAND, in his individual and official capacity, VIRGINIA FREED, in her individual capacity, DR. THIELY, in his individual and official capacity, MS. DILLMAN, in her individual and official capacity, and JANE GILDEN, in her individual and official capacity, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
PHILIP A. BRIMMER, Chief United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on December 21, 2021 [Docket No. 149]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 149 at 16; See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on December 21, 2021. 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) (“It 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.” 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
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 Michael E. Hegarty [Docket No. 149] is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendant Virginia Freed's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 110] is GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Virginia Freed are DISMISSED with prejudice; and
4. Defendant Virginia Freed is dismissed from this case.