Dixon v. Nielsen et al

Filing 35

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendations re 33 . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), this matter, and all claims asserted therein, is dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. All other pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 01/07/09.(jjh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 08-cv-01193-PAB-MEH ROCCO A. DIXON, Plaintiff, v. ADAM NIELSEN, in individual and official capacity, MONICA WINFREY, in individual and official capacity, and DANIEL MONTGOMERY, in individual and official capacity, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on December 12, 2008 [Docket No. 33]. 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 December 12, 2008. No party has objected to the Recommendation. In the absence of an 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); 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 for Dismissal for Failure to Pay and Failure to Prosecute [Docket No. 33] is ACCEPTED. 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), this matter, and all claims asserted therein, is dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. 3. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

DATED January 7, 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