McMinn v. Dodson et al
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, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01511-PAB-KMT
S.C.O. ROBERT DODSON.
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
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
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
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
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).
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App.
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
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?