Velasco v. Hernandez et al

Filing 74

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/27/17. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 73 is ACCEPTED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 42 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 8 is dismissed without prejudice. This case is closed. (kpreu)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 15-cv-02756-PAB-STV ISMAEL LEE VELASCO, Plaintiff, v. MR. STANCIL (Warden), MR. MALDONADO (Officer), MR. ARMIJO (Lt. Officer), and Unknown FCI Officers in SHU, all in their private and professional capacity, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak filed on January 9, 2017 [Docket No. 73]. 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 January 9, 2017. 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 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. 73] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 42] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Docket No. 8] is dismissed without prejudice. 4. This case is closed. DATED January 27, 2017. BY THE COURT: s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge 1 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

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?