Escobar v. Huertas et al

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING 11/4/2011 RECOMMENDATION 41 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; denying 37 Motion for a Prohibitory Injunction.By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/28/2011.(jjpsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00169-CMA-KLM
JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN H. HUERTAS,
LIEUTENANT TITEMAN,
SERGEANT FRETWELL,
SERGEANT WEST,
C/O P. ARCHULETA,
C/O SUTER,
C/O J. ENGLEHART, and
C/O D/ JOHNSON,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 4, 2011 RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the November 4, 2011 Recommendation by
United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. (Doc. # 41.) In the Recommendation,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s “Motion for a: Prohibitory Injunction”
(Doc. # 37) be denied.
The Recommendation also advised the parties that specific written objections
were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the
Recommendation. (Doc. # 41 at 5.) On November 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for
extension of time, which the Magistrate Judge granted the next day. (Doc. ## 44, 46.)
With the extension, Plaintiff had up to and including December 19, 2011 by which to file
any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. Despite this extension,

however, Plaintiff did not file any objections.
“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 Plaintiff’s motion
for a prohibitory injunction and the Recommendation. Based on this review, 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.”
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. # 41) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED
that Plaintiff’s “Motion for a: Prohibitory Injunction” (Doc. # 37) is DENIED.
DATED: December 28, 2011
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2