Redmon v. Zavaras et al

Filing 93

ORDER ACCEPTED 92 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Granting 68 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants. by Judge William J. Martinez on 7/13/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02133-WJM-CBS
MATTHEW TAZIO REDMON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, [former] Executive Director, CDOC, in his individual capacity,
CDOC OFFICER CATHIE HOLST, Assistant Director, CDOC Correctional Legal
Services, in her individual capacity,
CDOC OFFICER KEITH NORDELL, Acting Assistant Director, CDOC Correctional
Legal Services, in his official capacity, and
TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director, CDOC, in his official capacity,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING JUNE 16, 2011 RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on the June 16, 2011 Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 68) be GRANTED, and that summary judgment be entered on
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 92.) 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. 92 at 24-25.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been 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 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.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee’s note. Therefore, the
Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the
findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 92), filed June 16, 2011, is ACCEPTED. For the
reasons cited therein, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and
this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of
Defendants.
Dated this 13th day of July, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2