Smith v. Vanguard School, The et al

Filing 99

ORDER accepting 97 Report and Recommendations by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 10/2/17. 75 Amended Joint Petition for Order to Show Cause Pursuant to C.R.S. § 38-35-204, and for Relief Pursuant to C.R.S. § 38-35-109, is granted in part a nd denied in part. The Petition is granted to the extent that the Court finds the lis pendens were spurious. Defendants' request for relief under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-204 is denied as moot. Defendants' request for relief under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-109(3) is denied without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00555-PAB-CBS
R.S., a Minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE VANGUARD SCHOOL,
CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 12,
COLIN T. MULLANEY, in his individual capacity,
STERLING WARD BARR, in his individual capacity,
KAREN ANN HIGGINS, in her individual capacity,
WALTER C. COOPER, in his individual capacity,
CAROLENA STEEN, in her individual capacity,
DAN GEOFFROY, in his individual capacity,
JEFF LEASURE, in his individual capacity,
MATT HUGHES, in his individual capacity,
PATRICIA JESSE, in her individual capacity,
BRYAN EDWARD CAMPBELL, in his individual capacity,
SHERRYL DILLON, in her individual capacity,
STEVE K. PARKER, in his individual capacity,
MONICA PELOSO, in her individual capacity,
RANDY CASE, in his individual capacity,
TOM NEUMANN, in his individual capacity, and
RUSSELL ROSS, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation on Several Defendants’
Amended Petition for Relief of Judge Craig B. Shaffer filed on September 8, 2017
[Docket No. 97]. Objections to the Recommendation 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 September 8, 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 on Several Defendants’ Amended Petition for Relief
[Docket No. 97] is accepted.
2. Defendants’ Amended Joint Petition for Order to Show Cause Pursuant to
C.R.S. § 38-35-204, and for Relief Pursuant to C.R.S. § 38-35-109 [Docket No. 75] is
granted in part and denied in part.
3. The Petition is granted to the extent, as set forth in the Recommendation,
that the Court finds the lis pendens were spurious.
4. Defendants’ request for relief under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-204 is denied as
moot.

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

5. Defendants’ request for relief under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-109(3) is denied
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED October 2, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3