Gandy v. Zavaras et al

Filing 110

ORDER ACCEPTED 102 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Denying 83 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 5/23/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 09-cv-00205-CMA-KMT
ROBERT D. GANDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JULIE RUSSELL, and
STEVE HARTLEY,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JANUARY 10, 2011 RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 83), filed October 12, 2010. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge
Kathleen M. Tafoya for a Recommendation by Order of Reference dated October 13,
2010. On January 10, 2011, Magistrate Judge Tafoya issued a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. # 102), recommending that the Motion be denied and that the
matter be set for further proceedings.
The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation advised the parties that specific written
objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the
Recommendation. (Doc. # 102 at 16-17.) Although Defendants stated that
they planned to file objections to the Recommendation, no objections have been filed.
“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”).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings, including the Motion for
Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s Response, Defendants’ Reply, and the Report and
Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate
Judge’s thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations regarding the
Motion for Summary Judgment are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face
of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court
ADOPTS the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings
and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 102) is ACCEPTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 83), is DENIED.
DATED: May

23

, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge