Vigil v. Morgan, et al

Filing 77

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 72 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 68 is GRANTED; and Judgment shall enter in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The parties shall bear their own costs, by Judge William J. Martinez on 9/29/2014.(evana, )

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.
DOUG ROBERTS, Private Prison Monitor Unit, Medical,
NURSE RAY RICE, Employee, Contractor of CDOC, and
DR. MAURICE FAUVEL, Employee, Contractor of CDOC,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING AUGUST 26, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the August 26, 2014 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 72) that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68) 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.
72 at 10) 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. 72) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED; and

(3)

Judgment shall enter in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The parties shall
bear their own costs.
Dated this 29th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2