Marburger v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections

Filing 59

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 6/20/15. ORDERED: The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [ 58] is ACCEPTED. ORDERED: Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint [Docket No. 50] is dismissed without prejudice. ORDERED: This case is closed.(kpreu)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00971-PAB-KLM
CARL RAY MARBURGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE ESTATE OF EDGAR ALLEN NEWFELD,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix filed on June 10, 2015 [Docket No. 58]. T he
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 June 10, 2015. 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. 58] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint [Docket No. 50] is dismissed without
prejudice.
3. This case is closed.

DATED June 30, 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