Main v. Timme

Filing 27

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 26 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Plaintiffs Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ECF No. 1 is DENIED; and The above captioned matter is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and The Clerk shall close the case. Each party shall bear his or its own costs., by Judge William J. Martinez on 7/8/2013.(ervsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 12-cv-2737-WJM-CBS ROY J. MAIN, Plaintiff, v. RAE TIMME, Warden, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING JUNE 11, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ______________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the June 11, 2013 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 26) that Plaintiff’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) be denied. 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 26, at 9-10.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation have to date been received. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”). In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; and (3) The above captioned matter is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (4) The Clerk shall close the case. Each party shall bear his or its own costs. Dated this 8h day of July, 2013. BY THE COURT: _________________________ William J. Martínez 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?