Vreeland v. Fisher et al

Filing 454

ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/3/2021, re: 417 The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews is ACCEPTED; 410 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Hearing and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 65 Injunction is DENIED AS MOOT. (sphil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 17-cv-01580-PAB-SKC
DELMART E.J.M. VREELAND, II,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN M. TIONA,
ROBERT MAGNUSON, M.D.,
CELIA RIFE, R.N.,
KATHY MICKEY, and
TEJINDER SINGH, PA/NP,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews filed October 2, 2020 [Docket No. 417]. The
Recommendation states that 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 October 2, 2020. 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) (“It
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 S. Kato Crews
[Docket No. 417] is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Hearing and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 65
Injunction [Docket No. 410] is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED February 3, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief 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).