Susinka v. Trujillo et al

Filing 79

ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/16/2021, re: 78 the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty is ACCEPTED; 73 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Amend Complaint is DENIED.(sphil, )

Case 1:19-cv-02190-PAB-MEH Document 79 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02190-PAB-MEH
STEPHEN SUSINKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
A. TRUJILLO, Lieutenant, and
J. WILCOX, Correctional Officer,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
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 January 27, 2021 [Docket No. 78]. 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 January 27, 2021. 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

Case 1:19-cv-02190-PAB-MEH Document 79 Filed 02/16/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

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. 78] is ACCEPTED; and
2. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 73] is DENIED.

DATED February 16, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge

1This

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).