Mauchlin v. Bier et al

Filing 95

ORDER AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED 89 Report and Recommendations.denying 79 Plaintiff's Motion to file a Supplemental Complaint. Signed by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 1/16/09.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 07-cv-02593-CMA-MEH PETER P. MAUCHLIN, Plaintiff, v. BIER, SIS Correctional Supervisor, A. OSAGIE, Physician Assistant, DALGLEISH, EMT, BARRY, Correctional Supervisor, HAM, Correctional Supervisor, JOHN DOE 1, Correctional Officer, and JOHN DOE 2, Medical Officer, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JANUARY 6, 2009 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to File a Supplemental Complaint (Doc. # 79), filed November 26, 2008. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty for a Recommendation by Order of Reference dated December 1, 2008. Magistrate Judge Hegarty issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 89) on January 6, 2009 that the above-referenced motion be denied. (Recommendation at 1.) 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 ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Recommendation were filed by either party. The Court notes that on January 15, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a letter (Doc. # 94) clarifying an exhibit, but expressly stated in the letter that he could "find no basis in law or reason to object to" the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. "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 conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). Applying this standard, I am satisfied that the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hegarty is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). I agree that the above-referenced motion to file a supplemental complaint should be denied. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (Doc. # 89), filed January 6, 2009, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to File a Supplemental Complaint Consolidate (Doc. # 79), filed November 26, 2008 is DENIED. It is DATED: January 16 , 2009 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge

2