Jackson v. Wiley et al

Filing 24

ORDER accepting 20 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Denying 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Judgment, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 8/21/09.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Case No. 09-cv-01148-PAB-MJW SHAW N A. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD WILEY, Warden, SEAN JANSON, Lieutenant, DAVID SCHIEFELBEIN, Physician, ANTHONY OSAGIE, Physician, JOSE ARROYO, Counselor, and R. MARTINEZ, ISO, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe filed on July 28, 2009 [Docket No. 20]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within ten days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on July 28, 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. 20] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Judgment [Docket No. 11] is DENIED.

DATED August 21, 2009. 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