Handy Jr. v. Douglas et al

Filing 127

ORDER that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge dated May 14, 2015 ECF No. 101 is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs 80 Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED. Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint that adds Tiffany Davis as a Defendant in the case, but may not include Claims 8 and 9. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Third Amended Complaint shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of this Order, or by Monday, June 29, 2015, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 6/15/2015.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01930-WYD-MEH
WYATT T. HANDY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRACY DOUGLAS,
BARBARA REYMAN,
TAMERA COOPER,
BOBBY BONNER, ,
GREG WILKERSON,
UNKNOWN SHIFT COMMANDER/DUTY OFFICER,
BOBBY MAYES, and
SHERWYN PHILLIP,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint filed
on April 16, 2015. This motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Hegarty, and a
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge was issued on May 14, 2014.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), D.C.COLO.LCivR. 72.1. Magistrate
Judge Hegarty recommends therein that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint be
granted in part and denied in part.
More specifically, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that the motion to
amend be granted to allow Plaintiff to add his case manager, Tiffany Davis, as a
Defendant in the case. He recommends that the motion to amend be denied as

untimely as to Plaintiff’s request to add Claims 8 and 9, because Plaintiff knew or should
have known the facts upon which the proposed amendment is based but failed to
include them in the original complaint.
Magistrate Judge Hegarty advised the parties that specific written objections
were due within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation.
(Recommendation at 1 n. 1.) Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the
Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to
review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v.
Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not
required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear
error on the face of the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error.
I agree with Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s analysis that the Motion to Amend Complaint
should be granted to add Defendant Davis but otherwise denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge dated
May 14, 2015 (ECF No. 101) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. It is

1

Note, 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-

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED. Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint that
adds Tiffany Davis as a Defendant in the case, but may not include Claims 8 and 9. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Third Amended Complaint shall be filed within
fourteen (14) days of this Order, or by Monday, June 29, 2015.
Dated: June 15, 2015
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge

-3-