Gibson v. Campbell et al
ORDER Affirming and Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge dated August 21, 2012 332 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims for Injunctive Relief as Moot 319 is DENIED, by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 9/25/12.(sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 09-cv-00983-WYD-KLM
WELLMAN E. GIBSON,
ANNA MARIE CAMPBELL,
C. HOLST, AIC,
LT. STEINBECK, and
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court in connection with Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Injunctive Relief as Moot filed July 10, 2012. This motion
was referred to Magistrate Judge Mix. A Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge was issued on August 21, 2012, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Magistrate Judge Mix recommends therein that Defendants’ motion be denied,
as she found that Defendants did not meet their burden of establishing mootness as to
all of Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief. (Recommendation at 1, 6). In so finding, she
noted that the circumstances at issue are similar to those of another case in this court,
Vigil v. Colorado Dep’t of Corrections, Case No. 09-cv-01676-PAB-KLM. (Id. at 5.)
Magistrate Judge Mix advised the parties that specific written objections were
due within fourteen (14) days after service of the Recommendation. (Recommendation
at 7.) No objections were filed to the Recommendation. No objections having been
filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I]
deem appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see
also 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”). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to
"satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error
on the face of the record. I agree with Magistrate Judge Mix that Defendants have not
established that all of Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief is moot. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge dated
August 21, 2012 (ECF No. 332) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance
therewith, it is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Injunctive
Relief as Moot (ECF No. 319) is DENIED.
Dated: September 25, 2012
BY THE COURT:
s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief United States District Judge
Note, 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).
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?