Walker v. Bay et al

Filing 208

ORDER accepting 203 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Granting 189 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter, and all claims asserted therein, is dismissed with prejudice, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 9/18/09.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 07-cv-01848-PAB-KMT CLARENCE A. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. CHIEF SPENCE, CAPTAIN BAY, LIEUTENANT MARTIN, SARGEANT (sic) WISCAMB, SARGEANT (sic) ASPINOL, DEPUTY GOFF, DEPUTY KILLIAM and DEPUTY SEXTON, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on August 10, 2009 [Docket No. 203]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within ten days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on plaintiff on August 10, 2009 at his last known address at the Arapahoe County Detention Facility and was returned as undeliverable. On August 24, 2009, the Recommendation was served on plaintiff at an address provided by counsel for defendants pursuant to the Notice filed August 11, 2009 [Docket No. 204]. 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. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("[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"). In this matter, I have reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 203] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 189] is GRANTED. 3. This matter, and all claims asserted therein, is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED September 18, 2009. BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge

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). 2

1

3