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, )

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