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, )

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