Marshall v. Milyard et al

Filing 31

ORDER accepting 24 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Denying 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/11/10.(ebs, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 09-cv-02687-PAB-BNB ERIC MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN MILYARD, Warden, MICHAEL NEGLEY, Captain, TW EETEN, Lieutenant, JOHN DOE, MORKERT, Lieutenant, BELCHER, Sergeant, JOHN CHAPDELINE, Associate Warden, ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, Executive Director, and LLOYD WAIDE, Major, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland filed on February 18, 2010 [Docket No. 24]. Objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 18, 2010. 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. 24] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 22] is DENIED. DATED March 11, 2010. 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

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?