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, )

Download PDF
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

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?