Susinka v. Trujillo et al
ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/8/2021, re: 71 The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case 69 is DENIED.(sphil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02190-PAB-MEH
A. TRUJILLO, Lieutenant, and
J. WILCOX, Correctional Officer,
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on December 14, 2020 [Docket No. 71]. 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 December 14, 2020. No party has objected to the
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 Michael E. Hegarty
[Docket No. 71] is ACCEPTED; and
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case [Docket No. 69] is DENIED.
DATED January 8, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
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).
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?