Dmytryszyn v. Clements et al

Filing 115

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 114 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. FURTHER ORDERED granting 98 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 1/28/2016. (vbarn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03241-CMA-NYW
ADAM DMYTRYSZYN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director,
LIEUTENANT BERNADETTE SCOTT,
CAPTAIN T. SCOTT,
LIEUTENANT MAGELSON,
MAJOR BILDERAVA,
CAPTAIN BOLT,
SUPERINTENDENT JAMES FALK, and
STEPHEN LADD,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JANUARY 8, 2016
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation by United States
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
# 98) be granted. (Doc. # 114.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by
reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on June 17, 2015. (Doc. #
98.) The Motion was thereafter referred to Magistrate Judge Wang pursuant to the
Order Referring Case dated November 18, 2013 (Doc. # 36), the Reassignment dated
February 9, 2015 (Doc. # 69), and the Memorandum dated June 18, 2015 (Doc. # 81).

Plaintiff never filed a response to Defendants’ Motion. On January 8, 2016, Magistrate
Judge Wang issued her Recommendation that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted. (Doc. # 114.)
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were
due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation.
(Doc. # 114 at 20.) Despite this advisement, Plaintiff lodged no objections to Magistrate
Judge Wang’s Recommendation.
“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate
[judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d
1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating
that “[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”)).
The Court has reviewed all relevant pleadings concerning Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court
concludes that Magistrate Judge Wang’s thorough and comprehensive analyses and
recommendations are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Wang as the findings and conclusions of
this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 114) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #
98) is GRANTED. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED: January 28, 2016
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge