Cruz v. Emig et al
ORDER ADOPTS 31 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. granting 23 Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Claim One, as it pertains to Defendants Heidenthal, Williams, Wilson, and DeCesarro is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 3/25/2010.(erv, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 09-cv-00949-CMA-MJW JOSHUA CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. SGT. EMIG, in his personal and individual capacity, SGT. ADAMIC, in his personal and individual capacity, C/O CORTESE, in his personal and individual capacity, LT. G. HEIDENTHAL, in his personal and individual capacity, LT. H. WILLIAMS, in his personal and individual capacity, CAPT. DOUG WILSON, in his personal and individual capacity, and ANTHONY A. DeCESARO, Step 3 Grievance Officer, in his personal and individual capacity, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MARCH 1, 2010 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the March 1, 2010 Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 23) be granted and that Claim One, as it pertains to Defendants Heidenthal, Williams, Wilson, and DeCesarro, be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. # 31.) 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 fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 28 at 20.) 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"). The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings, i.e., the Amended Complaint, the Motion to Dismiss (to which Plaintiff filed no response), and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations 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. # 31), filed March 1, 2010, is ACCEPTED, and, for the reasons cited therein, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed September 16, 2009, (Doc. # 23) is GRANTED. Claim One, as it pertains to Defendants Heidenthal, Williams, Wilson, and DeCesarro is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DATED: March 25 , 2010 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?