-BNB Lachkovich v. Ashcroft et al

Filing 16

ORDER accepting 14 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is dismissed. This file shall be unsealed, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/14/10.(ebssl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 08-cv-00066-PAB-BNB UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Thomas E. Lachkovich, Plaintiff, v. JOHN ASHCROFT, et al., Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland filed on May 6, 2010 [Docket No. 14]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on May 7, 2010. No party has objected to the Recommendation. As noted in the Recommendation, court mail addressed to plaintiff Lachkovich has been returned as undeliverable since March 31, 2010. The Recommendation was served at plaintiff's last known address and was also returned as undeliverable. However, for the reasons stated in the Recommendation, plaintiff has failed to inform the court of his current mailing address and therefore bears responsibility for not receiving a copy of 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. 14] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Complaint [Docket No. 1] is dismissed. 3. This file shall be unsealed.

DATED June 14, 2010. 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