Jimenez v. Martz et al

Filing 51

ORDER Accepting 48 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Defendants' 26 Motion to Dismiss is granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/21/12.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00948-PAB-CBS
ANTHONY L. JIMENEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. SARA MARTZ,
SOLANO, and
3 UNKNOWN DOC AGENTS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer filed on February 23, 2012 [Docket No. 48]. 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 February 23, 2012 and, after plaintiff filed a
notification of address change [Docket No. 49], an additional copy was sent to plaintiff’s
new address on February 27, 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. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 48] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 26] is granted.
3. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED March 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