Paulsen v. Raemisch et al
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/21/2017, re: 169 The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge is accepted, re: 117 Plaintiffs Motion, Requesting a Court Oder Allowing Plaintiff, Paulsen to Excersize [sic] His Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances in the CDOC (SCF) Law-Library is denied. (sphil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-0800-PAB-KMT
MARK WALTER PAULSEN,
DOUG ROBERTS, Medical Monitor, Private Prison Monitoring Unit, CDOC,
JERRY STEELE, Private Prison Monitoring Unit, CDOC,
RICHARD MADRID, Drug and Alcohol/Addiction Services, KCCC (Kit Carson
PATRICIA HEADLEY, CAC III, Drug and Alcohol/Addiction Services, KCCC,
L. MORTIN-EARL, MA, CAC III, Drug and Alcohol/Addiction Services, KCCC,
DESIREE ANDREWS, Health Services Administrator, KCCC,
KATHY M. WILEY, NP, Health Care Provider, KCCC,
KAREN C. MITCHELL, NP, Health Care Provider, KCCC,
DAVID R. GROSS, PA, Health Care Provider, KCCC, and
SUSAN M. TIONA, MD, Facility Physician, KCCC,
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on October 23, 2017 [Docket No. 169]. T he
Recommendation states that objections to the Recom mendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on October 23, 2017. No party has objected to the
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)
(“[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”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the
Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has
concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 169] is
2. Plaintiff’s Motion, Requesting a Court Oder Allowing Plaintiff, Paulsen to
Excersize [sic] His Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances in the
CDOC (SCF) Law-Library [Docket No. 117] is denied.
DATED November 21, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
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).
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?