Coates v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 27

ORDER Accepting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/21/16. ORDERED: The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [ 26] is ACCEPTED. ORDERED: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 19 is GRANTED. ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 5 is DENIED as moot. ORDERED: This case is dismissed without prejudice.(kpreu)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01109-PAB-NYW
CHRISTOPHER COATES,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
DAVID ALLRED,
JESSICA SEATON, and
OFFICER KELLER,
Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang filed on December 31, 2015 [Docket No. 26]. The
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 December 31, 2015. Objections were due on or
before January 19, 2016. 1 No party has objected to the Recommendation.
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

1

See Fed R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1), (d).

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.”2
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.
Additionally, the Court notes that defendants did not redact the attachments to
Dr. Allred’s affidavit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). However, given the nature of
these medical records, the Court will maintain the level 3 restriction on this attachment.
See Docket Entry No. 24-1. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 26] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No.19] is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 5] is DENIED as
moot.
4. This case is dismissed without prejudice.
DATED January 21, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

2

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