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, )
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?