Hamilton-Matthews v. GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC

Filing 29

ORDER Affirming and Adopting the 28 August 7, 2015 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge: Defendant GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC's Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. # 7 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's second claim for relief based on alleged retaliation is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 09/01/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00727-CMA-MEH
DELISA HAMILTON-MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEO CORRECTION AND DETENTION, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE AUGUST 7, 2015 RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL
MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on the August 7, 2015 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty that Defendant GEO Corrections and
Detention, LLC’s Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. # 7) be granted. That
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation advised the parties that specific
written objections, if any were to be made, were due within fourteen (14) days after
being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 28 at 1-2 n.1.) Neither party
filed objections to Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation. “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) (“It 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 of the relevant documents concerning Defendant’s
Motion for Partial Dismissal and Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation. Based
on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s thorough and
comprehensive analysis and recommendation are correct and that “there is no clear
error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983
amendment. Therefore, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Hegarty as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 28) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC’s
Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. # 7) is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second claim for relief based on alleged
retaliation is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.

DATED: September 1, 2015

BY THE COURT:

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2