Nunn v. Miller et al

Filing 62

ORDER adopting 61 Report and Recommendations, denying 55 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 56 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 2/8/16.(jdyne, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No 14-cv-00978-RBJ-CBS
RAY NUNN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LUNA, Lt., CCCF/CCA and
MRS. GRAHAM, Medical, CCCF/CCA,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the January 5, 2016 Order and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer [ECF No. 61]. The Recommendation addresses plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 55] and defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
[ECF No. 56]. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. ECF No. 61 at 6–7.
Despite this advisement and permitting additional time for service and filing due to possible
delays associated with the prison mail system, no objection to Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s
Recommendation was filed by either party. “In the absence of timely objection, the district court
may review a magistrate ... [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers

1

v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)
(stating that “[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”).
The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation. Based
on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analyses and recommendations
are correct, and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court adopts the Recommendation as the findings and
conclusions of this Court.
ORDER
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shaffer [ECF No.61] is
ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 55] is DENIED.
3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 56] is GRANTED, and this case
is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
DATED this 8th day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge

2