Vigil v. Walters et al

Filing 89

ORDER accepting 86 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The 58 , 59 Motions for Summary Judgment are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/10/11.(mnf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02886-PAB-MEH
TERRY VIGIL,
Plaintiff,
v.
POLLY WALTERS, RN,
KARLIN WERNER, RN,
DR. JERE SUTTON, Physician, and
DR. LOUIS CABILING, Physician, each in their individual capacities,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on May 16, 2011 [Docket No. 86]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on May 17, 2011. 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. 86] is
ACCEPTED.
2. The Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 58] filed by defendants Letha
Walter (incorrectly named in the Complaint as Polly Walters), Ernest Karlin (incorrectly
named in the Complaint as Karlin Werner), and Louis Cabiling and the Motion for
Summary Judgment [Docket No. 59] filed by defendant Jere Sutton are GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED June 10, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

1

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