Sladek v. City of Colorado Springs, CO. et al

Filing 67

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 60 RECOMMENDATION. The Colorado Springs Defendants' 18 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is granted. The 31 Motion to Dismis s Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is granted. Defendant El Paso County's 35 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is granted. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/9/14.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02165-PAB-MEH
DENNIS SLADEK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO, a Colorado municipality,
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL,
STEPHEN BACH,
EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO,
CITY OF FOUNTAIN, COLORADO,
TOWN OF GREEN MOUNTAIN FALLS, COLORADO,
TOWN OF MONUMENT, COLORADO,
TOWN OF WOODLAND PARK, COLORADO, and
TOWN OF PALMER LAKE, COLORADO,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on December 20, 2013 [Docket No. 60]. 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 December 20, 2013. 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. 60] is
ACCEPTED.
2. The Colorado Springs Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 18] filed by
defendants The City of Colorado Springs, The City of Colorado Springs City Council,
and Stephen Bach, is GRANTED.
3. The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed by defendants Town of Green Mountain Falls, Town
of Monument, City of Woodland Park, and City of Fountain [Docket No. 31] is
GRANTED.
4. Defendant El Paso County’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 35] is GRANTED.

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

DATED January 9, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

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

3