Paulsen v. Raemisch et al

Filing 97

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/21/2017, re: 90 The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge is accepted, re 63 Plaintiff's Motion, Requesting a Court Order 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
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00129-PAB-KMT
MARK WALTER PAULSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARETT GEBHART, BVCF TC Manager/Acting BVCF HSA,
CHRIS TEIPEL, BVCF TC Counselor, and
DOUG ROBERTS, BVCF Health Services Administrator,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
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. 90]. 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
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. 90] is
accepted.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion, Requesting a Court Order Allowing Plaintiff, Paulsen to
Excersize [sic] His Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances in the
CDOC (SCF) Law-Library [Docket No. 63] is denied.

DATED November 21, 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