Hebert v. Clements et al
Filing
31
ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 28 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendants Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 16 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiffs Claims against the Defendants in their official capacities for retroactive monetary relief are DISMISSED based on Eleventh Amendment immunity; and All other claims remaining pending in this case, by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/19/2013.(ervsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 13-cv-0259-WJM-BNB
HAL LEWIS HERBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections,
JAMES FALK, Warden, Sterling Correctional Facility (SCF),
MICHELLE NYCZ, Major SCF,
ROBERT KEISEL, Captain, SCF, and
CHASE FELZIEN, Lieutenant, SCF,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING OCTOBER 24, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the October 24, 2013 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 28)
that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) be granted in part and denied in
part. 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. 28 at 15 n.4.) 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. 28) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;
(2)
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART;
(3)
Plaintiff’s Claims against the Defendants in their official capacities for retroactive
monetary relief are DISMISSED based on Eleventh Amendment immunity; and
(4)
All other claims remaining pending in this case.
Dated this 19th day of November, 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?