Carrillo Franco v. CDOC Executive Director et al

Filing 50

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGES RECOMMENDATION by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/5/15. It is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 47] is ACCEPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 36] is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 35] is DENIED as moot. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed in its entirety.(kpreu)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02851-PAB-MEH
NOE CARRILLO FRANCO,
Plaintiff,
v.
STURGEON, in individual and official capacities,
CINDY NOLD, in individual and official capacities, and
KERRY BARON, in individual and official capacities,
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 9, 2014 [Docket No. 47]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recom mendation 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 9, 2014. 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. 47] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
[Docket No. 36] is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 35] is DENIED as
moot.
4. This case is dismissed in its entirety.

DATED January 5, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

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

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