Bald Eagle v. Jones et al

Filing 27

ORDER ACCEPTED 26 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Granting 21 Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. Civ. R. P. 12(b)(6) or for Summary and this case is DISMISSED. The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants.by Judge William J. Martinez on 6/13/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02535-WJM-MEH
LEONCIO MCDARIS BALD EAGLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN JONES,
MELODY BENALDI,
JOHNNY QUINTANNA,
MICHAEL TONY YOUNG,
ROBERT GONZALES,
GRETCHEN,
ALICE LEIHMAN,
OWENS,
CARRIE HERMAN,
CASSIE,
MONICA GONZALES,
ANGIE RAMIREZ,
NIKKI MACANERAS,
JENNIFER VEGIL,
SARA JORDAN,
MARLA RAY,
ANGIE STRICKLAND,
DESREA PADILLA,
JONATHAN JIMMY HAWTHORNE, and
PAUL MALCOLM ZEPHYER,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING MAY 19, 2011 RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on the May 19, 2011 Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Fed. Civ. R. P. 12(b)(6) or for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) be

GRANTED, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety for failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 26.) 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF
No. 26 at 2 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation were 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 concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s thorough and comprehensive
analyses and recommendations are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face
of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the
Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the
findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 26), filed April 19, 2011, is ACCEPTED. For the
reasons cited therein, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. Civ. R. P.

2

12(b)(6) or for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED and this case is
DISMISSED. The clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

3