Mason, III v. Clear Creek County Sheriff et al

Filing 79

ORDER Adopting in entirety 72 Magistrate Judge's Recommendation; Plaintiff's 67 Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in Part and Denied in Part as stated in the Recommendation. ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 05/02/2016.(cthom, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 14-cv-1917-WJM-NYW JAH FREDERICK NATHANIEL MASON, III, Plaintiff, v. CLEAR CREEK COUNTY SHERIFF, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING APRIL 7, 2016 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the April 7, 2016 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 72) that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 67) be denied as to summary judgment itself but granted as to Plaintiff’s alternative request to set a Final Pretrial Conference. 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 72 at 5 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation have to date been received. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the f ace of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”). In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 72) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 67) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as stated in the Recommendation. Dated this 2nd day of May, 2016. BY THE COURT: _________________________ William J. Martínez United States District Judge 2

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?