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, )
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?