Mallett v. Simpler et al

Filing 31

ORDER Affirming 24 December 16, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Restraining Order (Doc. # 14 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 20 ) is DENIED. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 01/21/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02323-CMA-MJW
DAWANE ARTHUR MALLETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. MUNOZ, Correctional Officer,
Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING DECEMBER 16, 2014 RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the December 16, 2014 Recommendation
by United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe that Pro Se Plaintiff’s Motion
for Emergency Restraining Order (Doc. # 14) and Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (Doc. # 20) be denied. (Doc. # 24.) 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.
(Doc. # 24.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Watanabe’s
Recommendation were 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 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 all the relevant pleadings concerning Plaintiff’s Motion
for Emergency Restraining Order and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and the
Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge
Watanabe’s thorough and comprehensive 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 of Magistrate
Judge Watanabe as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 24) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Restraining Order
(Doc. # 14) is DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(Doc. # 20) is DENIED.
DATED: January

21

, 2015

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2