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, ).

Download PDF
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

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?