Dixon v. Ruiz et al

Filing 42

AMENDED 41 ORDER Adopting and Affirming November 8, 2011 32 RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 32 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss 23 is MOOT and all claims asserted by plaintiff against said defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 1/30/12. (lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00562-RBJ-BNB
WALTER R. DIXON
Plaintiff,
v.
RUIZ, and,
PEGGY HEIL
Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 8, 2011
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the November 8, 2011 Recommendation by Magistrate
Judge Boyd N. Boland that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 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 Boland’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

1

findings”).
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. # 32, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #23 is MOOT and all claims asserted by plaintiff against said
defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED this 30th day of January, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge

2