Wright v. Hodge, et al

Filing 85

ORDER AFFIRMING 81 MAY 16, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Defendants' 59 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Plaintiff's 65 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. This case is dismissed. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 06/09/2014.(athom, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 12-cv-02214-CMA-MJW WILLIAM L. WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. HODGE, Dr., KATHLEEN BOYD, Nurse, and JUDY BEEMAN, Defendants. ORDER AFFIRMING MAY 16, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the May 16, 2014 Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (Doc. # 81) that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 59) and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 65.) 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. (Doc. # 81 at 10.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Watanabe’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 has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Watanabe’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 of Magistrate Judge Watanabe as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 81) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 59) is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 65) is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DATED: June 09 , 2014 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?