Reynolds v. Director(s), Colorado Department Of Corrections et al

Filing 60

ORDER Accepting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 59 is ACCEPTED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 44 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to USCS Fed. R. Civ. Proc. R. 56(b) 56 is DENIED AS MOOT. This case and the claims contained therein are dismissed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 03/12/14.(jhawk, ) (Main Document 60 replaced on 3/13/2014) (jhawk, ). Modified on 3/13/2014 to add the correct PDF (jhawk, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02558-PAB-KMT
JOHNNY L. REYNOLDS, #133703,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
MICHAEL LIND, Captain #3620,
CORDOVA, Lieutenant #3191,
JONI CORCORAN, Lieutenant #12916, and
JOHN REILLY, Correctional Industries Supervisor,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on February 13, 2014 [Docket No. 59]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on February 14, 2014. No party has objected to the
Recommendation.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)
(“[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”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the
Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has
concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 59] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 44] is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to USCS Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. R. 56(b) [Docket No. 56] is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. This case and the claims contained therein are dismissed.

DATED March 12, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

1

This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
2