Wolf v. No Defendants Named

Filing 15

ORDER accepting 14 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 4 and this case are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Denying 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/21/10.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Case No. 09-cv-00775-PAB-KMT PHILIP ANDREW WOLF, Plaintiff, v. DAVID R. MYRLAND, Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on December 31, 2009 [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 December 31, 2009. 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. 14] is accepted; 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint [Docket No. 4] and this case are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 3. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 8] is denied.

DATED January 21, 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