Kahn v. Daniels

Filing 20

ORDER ACCEPTED 19 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Petitioners Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus ECF No. 1 is DENIED; and The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant. Each party will bear his own attorneys fees and costs, by Judge William J. Martinez on 8/31/2012.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-0875-WJM
ROY ALBERT KAHN
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES DANIELS
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
PETITIONER’S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

This matter is before the Court on the July 31, 2012 Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe that Petitioner’s Application for Writ of
Habeas Corpus be denied and this action dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 19.) The
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were
due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF
No. 19 at 6-7.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation were filed by either party. “In the absence of timely objection, the
district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge’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) (stating 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”).
The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and recommendation
is correct and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 19) is
ACCEPTED;

2.

Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; and

3.

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant. Each party will bear his
own attorney’s fees and costs.
Dated this 31st day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2