Harrell v. Daniel et al
ORDER Adopting and Affirming January 27, 2012 Recommendations 56 of United States Magistrate Judge. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 28 is GRANTED and all claims asserted by plaintiff against said defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 3/7/12.(lsw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02668-RBJ-CBS
THOMAS JAMES HARRELL,
C/O S. DANIEL, and
LT. T. VIALPANDO
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JANUARY 27, 2012 RECOMMENDATIONS
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the January 27, 2012 Recommendation by Magistrate
Judge Craig S. Shaffer that defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#28) be granted and
judgment entered in favor of the defendants. 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 (#32). Despite this
advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Shaffer’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
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation.
Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s 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
The United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge, Doc. #56, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. #28 is GRANTED and all claims asserted by plaintiff
against said defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED this 7th day of March, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge
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?