Blevins v. Keller et al

Filing 83

ORDER APPROVED 79 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. granting 64 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendant shall have his costs by the filing of a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of this Court within fourteen days of the entry of judgment. Defendants request for attorneys fees is hereby DENIED. by Judge William J. Martinez on 4/20/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 09-cv-01531-WJM-KMT
TERRY BLEVINS
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF WELLS,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MARCH 14, 2011 RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the March 14, 2011 Recommendation by
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (ECF No. 79) that “Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment” (ECF No. 64) be GRANTED for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies. 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF
No. 79 at 7-8.) 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 concludes the Magistrate Judge’s analyses and recommendations are
correct and “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
(ECF No. 79), filed March 14, 2011, is APPROVED, and, for the reasons cited therein,
•

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (ECF No. 64) is GRANTED for
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

•

Defendant shall have his costs by the filing of a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of this
Court within fourteen days of the entry of judgment. Defendant’s request for
attorney’s fees is hereby DENIED.
Dated this 20th day of April, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2