Georgacarakos v. Wiley et al

Filing 889

ORDER Adopting and Affirming February 1, 2012 886 Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 864 is GRANTED and the remaining Claim Two is DISMISSED. All claims filed in this case have been considered, all motions have been resolved, and the Court orders that a final judgment enter dismissing the case with prejudice, by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 3/12/12.(lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01712-RBJ-MEH
PETER GEORGACARAKOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILEY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING FEBRUARY 1, 2012 RECOMMENDATIONS
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the February 1, 2012 Recommendation by Magistrate
Judge Michael E. Hegarty (Docket #886). Judge Hegarty recommends that the Third Motion for
Summary Judgment be GRANTED (Docket #864). 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation (#886). Despite this
advisement, no objections to Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation were filed by either party. After
receiving a letter from plaintiff on February 21, 2012 this Court granted plaintiff an additional 14
days to file an objection to Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation (#888). Again, no objection was
filed. “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . .
[judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165,
1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing 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
1

conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings”).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation.
Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analyses and
recommendations are correct, and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of
the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge, Doc. #886, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. #864 is GRANTED and the remaining Claim Two is
DISMISSED. Accordingly, all claims filed in this case have been considered, all motions have
been resolved, and the Court orders that a final judgment enter dismissing the case with
prejudice.
DATED this 12th day of March, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge

2