Rainey v. Huertas

Filing 119

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 113 Report and Recommendations: 55 Motion for Investigation for Being Denied Access to the Court and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and 61 Reply Motion for Investigation for Being Denied Access to the Court and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order are denied, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 1/4/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01434-CMA-MEH
JOHN RAINEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN RICHARD,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 30, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Matistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 15.) On November 30,
2012, Judge Hegarty issued a Recommendation, advising that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Investigation for Being Denied Access to the Court and Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 55) and Plaintiff’s Reply Motion for Investigation
for Being Denied Access to the Court and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. # 61) be denied. (Doc. # 113.) The Recommendation stated
that “all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file any
written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this
case is assigned.” (Id. at 1, n.1.) It also informed the parties that “failure to file such
written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report

may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed
findings and recommendations.” (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
and the filings to which it relates, the Court discerns no clear error on the face of the
record and finds that Judge Hegarty’s reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (Doc. # 113) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an
Order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Investigation for Being Denied
Access to the Court and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc.
# 55) and Plaintiff’s Reply Motion for Investigation for Being Denied Access to the Court
and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 61) are DENIED.
DATED: January

04

, 2013
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2