Escobar v. Holditch et al

Filing 85

ORDER adopting and affirming 2/1/2012 Recommendations 84 of United States Magistrate Judge; granting 65 Motion for Summary Judgment. FURTHER ORDERED this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that dismissal of this action constitutes a strike against Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g) for pursuing frivolous claims. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 2/22/2012.(jjpsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02050-CMA-KLM
JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAJOR C. HOLDITCH,
SERGEANT ROBERTS,
SERGEANT HALSTEAD,
SERGEANT P. BINDER,
C/O CRIDER,
C/O FERGUSON,
C/O MARTIN,
C/O COOPER,
C/O K. VIALPONDO,
C/O ARCHULETA,
C/O A. LOMBARD,
SERGEANT POOL,
LIEUTENANT T. CHAVEZ,
DOCTOR J. WRIGHT, and
NURSE PRACTITIONER K. BOYD,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING FEBRUARY 1, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636. (Doc. # 10.) On February
1, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 84), advising that the
Defendants= Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 65) be granted and that Athis action

count as a strike against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g) based on the frivolous
nature of the pursued claims.@ The Recommendation stated that Athe parties shall have
fourteen (14) days after service of this Recommendation to serve and file any written
objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is
assigned.@ (Doc. # 84 at 32-33.) It also advised the parties that Afailure to serve and
file specific, written objections waives de novo review of the Recommendation by the
District Judge . . . .@ (Id. at 33.) Neither party has filed objections.
AIn the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate=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) (observing
that A[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@)). Having reviewed the Recommendation,
the Court discerns no clear error on the face of the record and determines that the
Magistrate Judge=s reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (Doc. # 84) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Pursuant to
the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants= Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
# 65) is GRANTED. It is

2

FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that dismissal of this action constitutes a strike against
Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g) for pursuing frivolous claims.
DATED: February

22

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3