Walker et al v. Wegener et al

Filing 32

ORDER Accepting 21 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The 3 Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Suthers and McLimans is granted. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/26/12.(mnfsl, ) Modified on 3/27/2012 to add ruling on motion (mnfsl, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03238-PAB-KMT
SAMUEL M. WALKER and
DIANE H. WALKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FRED WEGENER, individual and official capacity,
BOBBY PRIESTLY, individual and official capacity,
CINDY HARDEY, individual and official capacity,
REBECCA BRAMLETT, individual and official capacity,
AMY FRANCK, individual and official capacity,
JUAN GALLEGOS, individual and official capacity,
DEP SGT BROWN, individual and official capacity,
PARK COUNTY,
PARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, COLORADO, official capacity, and
COURT CLERK, individual and official capacity,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
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 March 2, 2012 [Docket No. 21]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on March 2, 2012. 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. 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, I have reviewed the Recommendation to
satisfy myself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1 See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have 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. 21] is
ACCEPTED.
2. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Suthers and McLimans [Docket No. 3]
is GRANTED.

DATED March 26, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

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