Lindsey v. John Doe

Filing 62

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 61 Report and Recommendations: 42 Motion for Court Order Granting is denied, and 52 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. This case is dismissed, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/10/12.(dkals, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 11-cv-02924-CMA-BNB MAURICE E. LINDSEY, Plaintiff, v. DR. CARTER, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 19, 2012 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 44.) On November 19, 2012, Judge Boland issued a Recommendation, advising that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Court Order Granting” (Doc. # 42) be denied and Defendant’s “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. # 52) be granted. (Doc. # 61.) The Recommendation stated that “the parties have 14 days after service of this recommendation to serve and file specific, written objections.” (Id. at 10 n.2.) It also informed the parties that “failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo review of the recommendation by the district judge . . . .” (Id.) Neither 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, the Court discerns no clear error on the face of the record and finds that Judge Boland’s reasoning is sound. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (Doc. # 61) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Court Order Granting” (Doc. # 42) is DENIED, and Defendant’s “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. # 52) is GRANTED. As such, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the certification procedure in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, thus, leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED. DATED: December 10 , 2012 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge 2

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?