Obando v. Zavaras et al

Filing 75

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 74 Report and Recommendations: 48 Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, 50 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied as moot, and 39 Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/20/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01372-CMA-KLM
ALEX OBANDO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, DOC Executive Director,
TOM CLEMENTS, DOC Executive Director,
SUSAN JONES, CSP Warden,
MICHELLE NYCZ, Classification Chairperson,
DAN DENNIS, Committee Member,
JOHN DOE, CSP Assistant Administrative Head, and
KEVIN L. MILYARD,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 30, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 7.) On October 30, 2012, Judge
Mix issued a Recommendation, advising that: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 48) be granted; Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 50) be denied as moot; and Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. # 39) be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. # 74.) The Recommendation stated
that “the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service of this Recommendation to
serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District
Judge to whom this case is assigned.” (Id. at 40.) It also informed the parties that

“failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo review by the District
Court . . . .” (Id.) No party has filed objections.
“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate=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) (observing
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”)). Having reviewed the Recommendation,
which is extremely thorough, the Court discerns no clear error on the face of the record
and finds that Judge Mix’s reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (Doc. # 74) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Pursuant to,
and as specified with detail in, the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. # 48) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Doc. # 50) is DENIED AS MOOT. As such, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 39) is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED: November

20

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2