Snyder v. Rickter
Filing
22
ORDER accepting 21 Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. Defendant's 18 Motion to Dismiss is granted. This case is dismissed. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/11/12.(mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00232-PAB-KMT
LANE L. SNYDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOCTOR RICKTER,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on December 20, 2011 [Docket No. 21].
The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Recommendation was served on December 20, 2011. No party has objected to
the Recommendation.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d
1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“[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”). In this matter, I have reviewed the Recommendation to
satisfy myself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1 See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have concluded that the
Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 21] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 18] is granted.
3. This case is dismissed.
DATED January 11, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
1
This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
2
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?