Meyer v. Ferguson et al
Filing
126
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 125 RECOMMENDATION. Defendants' 123 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and judgment is entered in favor of defendants on all of plaintiff's remaining claims. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status will be denied for the purpose of appeal. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 9/4/12.(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,
OFFICER LUIS GARCIA, CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION UNIT (individual and official
capacity), and
CORRECTIONS OFFICER MULAY (individual and official capacity),
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 August 14, 2012 [Docket No. 125]. The
Recommendation states that 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 August 14, 2012. 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. See 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, the Court has reviewed the
Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has
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. 125] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [123] is GRANTED, and
judgment is entered in favor of defendants on all of plaintiff’s remaining claims.
3. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from
this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status will
be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438
(1962).
DATED September 4, 2012.
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
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?