Kopec v. Suthers

Filing 31

ORDER ACCEPTED 30 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, and, for the reasons cited therein, Applicants Second Amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed January 9, 2009 10 , is DENIED and this civil action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/9/09.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 08-cv-02655-CMA-KLM MICHAEL GERARD KOPEC, Plaintiff, v. RON LEYBA, Warden, and JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 30, 2009 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the October 30, 2009 Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge that Applicant's Second Amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied (Doc. # 30). 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. "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, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The Court agrees that this case should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 30), filed October 30, 2009, is ACCEPTED, and, for the reasons cited therein, Applicant's Second Amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed January 9, 2009 (Doc. # 10), is DENIED and this civil action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DATED: December 9 , 2009 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge

2