Ervin v. Wilson et al

Filing 155

ORDER by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/28/15. ORDERED: The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 154 is ACCEPTED. ORDERED: Defendant Lisa Gregory's Motion for Summary Judgment 117 is GRANTED. ORDERED: Defendant Lisa Gregory' s Motion to Dismiss 116 is DENIED as moot. ORDERED: Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Lisa Gregory is dismissed with prejudice. ORDERED: Within 14 days after the entry of judgment, defendants may have their costs by filing a bill of costs with the Clerk of the Court. ORDERED: This case is dismissed in its entirety. (kpreu)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02602-PAB-MEH
BRUCE ERVIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA GREGORY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (the “Recommendation”) filed on July 1, 2015
[Docket No. 154]. The magistrate judge recommends that the Court grant the Motion
for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 117] filed by defendant Lisa Gregory and deny as
moot Ms. Gregory’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 116]. 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 July 1, 2015. 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 that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket
No. 154] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that defendant Lisa Gregory’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Docket No. 117] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that defendant Lisa Gregory’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 116] is
DENIED as moot. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Lisa
Gregory is dismissed with prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that, within 14 days after the entry of judgment, defendants may
have their costs by filing a bill of costs with the Clerk of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed in its entirety.

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

DATED July 28, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

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

3