Howard v. Las Animas County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 123

ORDER accepting 121 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Granting 47 Defendants Timothy Schimberg and Fowler, Schimberg & Flanagan's Motion to Dismiss. Granting 57 Defendant County Technical Services, Inc.'s Motion to D ismiss. Granting 90 The Las Animas County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Granting 91 The individual Las Animas County defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Petition for Entry of Amended Complaint, Amending of Complaint Caption and Servicing of by U.S. Marshal of New Defendants 119 is denied. Any other pending motions are denied as moot. This matter, and all claims asserted therein, is dismissed with prejudice, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/22/10.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 09-cv-00640-PAB-KLM MARK EUGENE HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. LAS ANIMAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, JAMES W. CASIAS, Las Animas County Sheriff, in his professional capacity, DEREK NAVARETTE, Las Animas County Under Sheriff, in his professional capacity, LAS ANIMAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LAS ANIMAS COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MARY D. NEWNAM, Las Animas County Attorney, in her official capacity, FOW LER, SCHIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.C., JESSIE MANZANARES, Attorney, TIMOTHY P. SCHIMBERG, in his professional capacity, and COUNTY TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix filed on February 23, 2010 [Docket No. 121]. 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 February 23, 2010. No party has objected to 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. 121] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendants Timothy Schimberg and Fowler, Schimberg & Flanagan's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 47] is GRANTED. 3. Defendant County Technical Services, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 57] is GRANTED. 4. The Las Animas County defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 90] is GRANTED. 5. The individual Las Animas County defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 91] is GRANTED.

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

6. Plaintiff's Petition for Entry of Amended Complaint, Amending of Complaint Caption and Servicing of by U.S. Marshal of New Defendants [Docket No. 119] is DENIED. 7. Any other pending motions are DENIED as moot. 8. This matter, and all claims asserted therein, is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED March 22, 2010. BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge

3