Barksdale v. Connaghan et al

Filing 58

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 57 Report and Recommendations: 52 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the claims against Defendant Connaghan are dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Patricia Panek is dismissed without prejudice, and this case is closed. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 1/4/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02491-CMA-CBS
STEVEN BARKSDALE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GENIE CONNAGHAN,
PATRICIA PANEK, a/k/a PATRICIA RAE, ,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING DECEMBER 10, 2012 RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the December 10, 2012 Recommendation by
United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (Doc. # 57) that Defendant Genie
Connaghan’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 52) be granted. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were
due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation.
(Doc. # 57 at 19-20.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge
Shaffer’s Recommendation have been filed by either party. “In the absence of timely
objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge’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) (stating that “[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.”).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning Defendant
Connaghan’s Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as the Recommendation.
Based on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s thorough and
comprehensive analyses and recommendations are correct and that “there is no clear
error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note.
Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shaffer as
the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 57) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Connaghan’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 52) is GRANTED and the claims against her are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. (Doc. # 57 at 19.) It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Patricia Panek be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to serve1. (Doc. # 67 at 19.)

1

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant summary judgment in favor
of Defendant Panek for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, Defendant Panek
has never been served and so the Court has no jurisdiction over her. Thus, the Court rejects
this portion of the Recommendation and instead adopts Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s recommendation that Defendant Panek be dismissed under Rule 4(m).

2

As all Defendants have been dismissed, this case is now CLOSED in its entirety.
DATED: January

04

, 2013
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3