Thornton v. Kramer et al

Filing 55

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 49 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 37 is GRANTED; and Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants Sgt. Kramer, Sgt. Adamic, and CO Christenson on all claims. Defendants shall have their costs, by Judge William J. Martinez on 4/23/2014.(evana, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 12-cv-3152-WJM-MJW DAVID A. THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. SGT. KRAMER, SGT. ADAMIC, and CO O. CHRISTENSON, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING MARCH 11, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the March 11, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 49) that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) be granted. 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. 49, at 12.) On March 25, 2014, after receiving no timely objections, the Court construed Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) as a request for an extension of time to file an objection to the Recommendation, and granted an extension of time until April 14, 2014. (ECF No. 51.) Despite this, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation have to date been received. The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and 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. 49) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED; and (3) Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants Sgt. Kramer, Sgt. Adamic, and CO Christenson on all claims. Defendants shall have their costs. Dated this 23rd day of April, 2014. 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?