Sardakowski v. Clements et al

Filing 101

ORDER. It is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (# 92 ) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff's claims for retrospective declaratory relief are DISMISSED without prejudice, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (# 79 ) is DENIED. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 07/01/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01326-RBJ-KLM
JAMES SARDAKOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM CLEMENTS, Individual Capacity,
TRAVIS TRANI, Individual Capacity, and
KAVIN SNYDER, Individual Capacity,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the March 26, 2013 Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Kristen L. Mix [docket #92]. As relevant here, the Recommendation addresses
defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#79]. 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Despite this
advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Mix’s Recommendation was filed by either party.
“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) (“It 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.”)).

1

The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation. Based
on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analyses and recommendations
are correct, and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation as the findings
and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#92] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s claims for retrospective declaratory
relief are DISMISSED without prejudice, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#79] is DENIED.
DATED this 1st day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge

2