Escobar v. Jones et al

Filing 197

ORDER Affirming 185 Report and Recommendations: 171 Motion for Injunctive Relief is denied, and 177 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied as moot. 172 Motion for Leave to Submit Affidavit, 175 Motion for Leave to Supplement Motion for Injunctive Relief, and 178 Motion to Further Supplement Motion for Injunctive Relief are granted. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/13/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02207-CMA-KLM
JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN J. DALTON,
LIEUTENANT MARTZ,
LIEUTENANT CHAVEZ,
SERGEANT A. LUNA,
SERGEANT P. BINDER,
SERGEANT J. WEST,
SERGEANT HARDRICK,
SERGEANT HUDSPETH,
SERGEANT KELEMAN,
C/O D. GALLAGHER,
C/O BRYANT,
C/O A. DALTON,
C/O R. MARTINEZ,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 21, 2012 RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the November 21, 2012 Recommendation by
United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. (Doc. # 185.) In her Recommendation,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff Jose Medina Escobar’s Motion for
Injunctive Relief (Doc. # 171) be denied; that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Submit
Affidavit (Doc. # 172), Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to supplement Motion for Injunctive
Relief (Doc. # 175), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Further Supplement Motion for Injunctive

Relief (Doc. # 178) all be granted; and that Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to
Respond to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 177) be denied as
moot. 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.1
(Doc. # 185 at 12.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Mix’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.”).
Based on the Court’s review of the relevant motions and the Recommendation,
the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Mix’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 Magistrate Judge Mix as the findings and conclusions of this
Court.

1

At the Final Trial Preparation Conference, the Court also informed the parties that
they had until December 12, 2012 to file written objections to Magistrate Judge Mix’s Recommendation.

2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 185) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. # 171)
is DENIED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Submit Affidavit
(Doc. # 172), Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Motion for Injunctive Relief
(Doc. # 175), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Further Supplement Motion for Injunctive Relief
(Doc. # 178) are GRANTED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Respond
to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 177) is DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED: December

13

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3