Meyer v. Ferguson et al

Filing 103

ORDER accepting 90 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. All claims against defendant Darrow are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for lack of service. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 8/4/11.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02302-PAB-KMT
JOHN M. MEYER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MR. FERGUSON (Individual Capacity) Sgt., DRDC Infirmary,
MR. MEIGGS (Individual Capacity) Intake Sgt., CTCF,
JOHN DOE 1 (Individual and Official Capacity) Correctional Officer, CH 4,
JOHN DOE 2 (Individual and Official Capacity) C/O, CTCF Reception, and
DR. DARROW (Individual and Official Capacity) Medical Doctor, CTCF,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on June 29, 2011 [Docket No. 90]. 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 June 29, 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. 90]

is ACCEPTED.
2.

All claims against defendant Darrow are dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for lack of service.

DATED August 4, 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