Wilder v. Federal Corrections Officers 1-10 et al

Filing 46

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendations 45 . Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to name Charles Daniels and Lieutenant Borges as defendants. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint naming these two defendants (and not the dismissed defendants) on or before April 11, 2014. The United States Marshal is directed to serve defendants Daniels and Borges. All remaining defendants are dismissed without prejudice by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 03/13/14.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01701-PAB-BNB
CHRISTOPHER JAMES WILDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL CORRECTIONS OFFICERS 1-10,
FEDERAL CORRECTIONS COUNSELORS 1-3,
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL LIEUTENANT,
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL ASSISTANT WARDENS 1-3,
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL WARDEN, and
UNKNOWN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 1-10,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland filed on February 18, 2014 [Docket No. 45]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on February 19, 2014. No party has objected to the
Recommendation.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)
(“[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”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the
Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has
concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 45] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to name Charles Daniels and Lieutenant
Borges as defendants. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint naming these two
defendants (and not the dismissed defendants) on or before April 11, 2014.
3. The United States Marshal is directed to serve defendants Daniels and
Borges.
4. All remaining defendants are dismissed without prejudice.

DATED March 13, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

1

This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
2