Frazier v. Zavaras et al

Filing 72

ORDER adopting and affirming 1/31/12 70 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge; denying 63 Motion for Order. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 2/22/12.(jjpsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02534-CMA-KMT
KEITH FRAZIER
Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN BARKER, Librarian, BCCF,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JANUARY 31, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Doc. # 9.)
On January 31, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 70),
advising that the Motion filed by Plaintiff, Keith Frazier, on December 5, 2011 (Doc.
# 63), be denied.1 The Recommendation stated that “[w]ithin fourteen days after service
of a copy of the Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections . . . .”
(Doc. # 70 at 3.) It also advised the parties that “[f]ailure to make timely objections may

1

Plaintiff labeled the Motion “A change in policy at the Crowley County Correctional
Facility (“CCCF”), set to go into effect on December 1, 2011, which will work to block
my access to the courts by keeping me from being able to get envelopes for mailing
my legal work out in [sic] anymore.” (Doc. # 63.) The Magistrate Judge, construing the
motion liberally, addressed it as a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or for a
preliminary injunction. (Doc. # 70 at 1.)

bar de novo review by the district judge of the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations . . . .” (Id.) 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 “[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 Kathleen M. Tafoya (Doc. # 70) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s December 5, 2011 Motion (Doc. # 63)
is DENIED.
DATED: February

22

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2