Evans v. Doizaki et al

Filing 76

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 75 RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 for plaintiff's failure to make monthly payments of twenty percent of his preceding month's income until his filing fee was paid in full, or show cause each month that he has no assets with which to make the monthly payment. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/30/11.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01658-PAB-BNB
NOUR GRIFFIN EVANS
Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT R. DOIZAKI, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for
Arapahoe County,
DEPUTY L. EMERSON, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for
Arapahoe County,
DEPUTY D. THOMPSON, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for
Arapahoe County,
DEPUTY S. BANCROFT, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for
Arapahoe County,
DEPUTY D. KLEINHEKSEL, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff
for Arapahoe County,
DEPUTY C. WENZEL, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for
Arapahoe County,
DEPUTY T. BAHRS, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for
Arapahoe County,
DEPUTY B. KNUDSEN, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for
Arapahoe County,
DEPUTY S. ROLEN, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for
Arapahoe County, and
DEPUTY K. ELLEDGE, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for
Arapahoe County,
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 November 8, 2011 [Docket No. 75]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendations must be filed within
fourteen days after service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The

Recommendation was served on November 8, 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. 75] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR
41.1 for plaintiff’s failure to make monthly payments of twenty percent of his preceding
month’s income until his filing fee was paid in full, or show cause each month that he
has no assets with which to make the monthly payment.

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

DATED November 30, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

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

3