McMinn v. Dodson et al

Filing 161

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 160 RECOMMENDATION. Defendant Robert Dodson's 146 Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss is granted. All claims against defendant Dodson are dismissed without prejudice. Defendant Robert Dodson's 127 Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 which requests sanctions in the form of dismissal, is denied as moot. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status will be denied for the purpose of appeal. This case is closed in its entirety. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/26/13.(mnfsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 11-cv-01511-PAB-KMT GLENN McMINN, Plaintiff, v. S.C.O. ROBERT DODSON. 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 February 7, 2013 [Docket No. 160]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 7, 2013. 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. See 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, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has 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. 160] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant Robert Dodson’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 146] is GRANTED. All claims against defendant Dodson are dismissed without prejudice. 3. Defendant Robert Dodson’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 [Docket No. 127], which requests sanctions in the form of dismissal, is DENIED as moot. 4. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Mr. McMinn files a notice of appeal, he also must pay the full $455.00 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States 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 Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. 5. That this case is closed in its entirety. DATED February 26, 2013. BY THE COURT: s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge 3

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?