Sierra-Garcia v. Hawks et al

Filing 33

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION IN PART. The 32 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge is accepted in part and rejected in part. This case is dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Defendants' 19 Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/21/12.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00410-PAB-MEH
CRYSTAL SIERRA-GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O HAWKS,
ROBBIE BOLTON (SOTMP),
PATRICIA MONTEZ (SOTMP),
RUDY BACA (CM), and
PATRICIA DURAN CM,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION IN PART
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on January 30, 2012 [Docket No. 32]. 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 January 30, 2012. 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. However, given
plaintiff’s indications that she is attempting to exhaust her administrative remedies, the
Court will not dismiss her complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 32] is
accepted in part and rejected in part.
2. This case is dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint [Docket No. 19] is denied as moot.

DATED February 21, 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