Oakley v. Raemisch et al

Filing 56

ORDER Adopting and Affirming February 2, 2016 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 29 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as indicated in the attached Order. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 02/26/2016. (athom, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 14-cv-03000-CMA-MJW JACOB DANIEL OAKLEY, Plaintiff, v. RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director (Individual and Official Capacities), Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING FEBRUARY 2, 2016 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 29) be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. # 55.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) on March 19, 2015. (Doc. # 29.) The Motion was thereafter referred to Magistrate Judge Watanabe pursuant to the Order Referring Case dated December 16, 2014 (Doc. # 15) and the Memorandum dated March 30, 2015 (Doc. # 30). Plaintiff filed a self-styled “objection” in response to the Motion on May 11, 2015. (Doc. # 41.) Defendant thereafter replied. (Doc. # 48.) On February 2, 2016, Magistrate Judge Watanabe issued his Recommendation that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. # 55.) 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. # 55 at 11.) Despite this advisement, no objections were lodged 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 relevant pleadings concerning Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 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. # 55) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 29) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Count One is dismissed insofar as it seeks compensatory or punitive damages, but survives insofar as it seeks injunctive relief. Counts Two and Three are dismissed for failure to state a claim. DATED: February 26, 2016 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge

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?