Griffith v. Clements et al

Filing 79

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 69 Report and Recommendations: 46 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Prospective Injunctive Relief and 50 Motion for Defendants to Show Cause and Motion for Restraining Order to Defendants to Return the Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint are denied, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/29/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03078-CMA-BNB
DARLENE GRIFFITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARMEN A. MEYER, R.N., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 7, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case 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. # 16.) On November 7,
2012, Judge Boland issued a Recommendation, advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s
“Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Prospective Injunctive Relief Pursuant to
§ 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(2) and (b)(1)” (Doc. # 46) and her “Motion for Defendants to Show
Cause and Motion for Restraining Order to Defendants to Return the Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint” (Doc. # 50). (Doc. # 69.) The Recommendation stated that
“the parties have 14 days after service of this recommendation to serve and file specific,
written objections.” (Id. at 6 n.3.) 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.) 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,
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. # 69) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order
of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Prospective Injunctive Relief Pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(2) and (b)(1)” (Doc.
# 46) and her “Motion for Defendants to Show Cause and Motion for Restraining Order
to Defendants to Return the Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint” (Doc. # 50) are
DENIED.
DATED: November

29

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2