Bomprezzi v. Hoffman et al

Filing 53

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 52 October 28, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 28 ) is DENIED. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/21/2014. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02085-CMA-BNB
MEL BOMPREZZI,
Plaintiff,
v.
GRAHAM HOFFMAN, Dr.,
JULIE MEEKER, Dr.,
LISA TOEPP, Dr.,
POUNDS, Dr., and
DEQUARDO, Dr.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 28, 2014
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 13.) On October 28,
2014, Judge Boland issued a Recommendation, advising the Court to deny Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 28). (Doc. # 52.) The Recommendation is
incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation advised the parties that specific written
objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the
Recommendation. (Id. at 5.) Despite this advisement, no party has objected to
Magistrate Judge Boland’s Recommendation. AIn the absence of timely objection,

the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems
appropriate.@ Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (observing that A[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@)).
Having reviewed the Recommendation, the Court discerns no clear error on the face
of the record and finds that Judge Boland=s reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (Doc. # 52) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an
Order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc.
# 28) is DENIED.
DATED: November

21 , 2014
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2