Vigil v. Morgan, et al

Filing 66

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 65 Report and Recommendations. Defendant Morgan's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Morgan are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall pay his or its own attorneys fees and costs. by Judge William J. Martinez on 6/18/2014.(trlee, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 13-cv-1976-WJM-MJW JOSEPH VIGIL, Plaintiff, v. BENT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MORGAN, BENT COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MEDICAL DOUG ROBERTS, NURSE RAY RICE, Contractor of CDOC, and DR. MAURICE FAUVEL, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING MAY 27, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, GRANTING DEFENDANT MORGAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS ______________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the May 27, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 65) that Defendant Morgan’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) 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. 65, at 8) 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. 65) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Defendant Morgan’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Morgan are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall pay his or its own attorney’s fees and costs. Dated this 18th day of June, 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?