Blue et al v. Colorado Springs Police Dept. et al

Filing 85

ORDER AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED 83 Report and Recommendations. granting 73 Defendant Police Officer D. Morks Motion for Summary Judgment; and that the claims asserted against Defendant Mork are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 11/18/09.(erv, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel Civil Action No. 07-cv-01459-WYD-KMT GREGORY A. BLUE, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL POSTAL INSPECTOR SKAFETTIE, FEDERAL POSTAL INSPECTOR JOHN DOE 2, COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 1, COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 3, COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 4, COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 5, COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE 6, CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO, and COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE OFFICER D. MORK 1763, Defendants. ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Police Officer D. Mork's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #73), which was filed on June 23, 2009 ("Motion"). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Tafoya for a Recommendation by Order of Reference dated February 13, 2008. Magistrate Judge Tafoya issued a Recommendation on October 28, 2009, which is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), D.C.COLO.LCivR. 72.1. Magistrate Judge Tafoya recommends therein that Defendant's Motion be granted and that summary judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Mork as to all claims asserted against him. (Recommendation at 11.) Magistrate Judge Tafoya advised the parties that written objections were due within ten (10) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 12-13.) Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record."1 See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes. Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Tafoya's Recommendation is thorough, well reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Tafoya that the Defendant's Motion should be granted and that summary judgment should be entered in favor of Defendant Mork as to all claims asserted against him for the reasons stated in both the Recommendation and this Order. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tafoya Note, 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). 1 -2- (docket #83), filed October 28, 2009, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Police Officer D. Mork's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #73) is GRANTED, and that the claims asserted against Defendant Mork are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dated: November 18, 2009 BY THE COURT: s/ Wiley Y. Daniel Wiley Y. Daniel Chief United States District Judge -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?