Wilkins v. Palomino et al

Filing 96

ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 9/7/2021, re: 75 Plaintiffs Motion for an Order to Show Cause for A Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; 83 The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's injunctive relief claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).(sphil, )

Case 1:20-cv-03495-PAB-MEH Document 96 Filed 09/07/21 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. 20-cv-03495-PAB-MEH
DARUS WILKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN PALOMINO, in his individual and official capacity,
CHRIS CHAVEZ, in his individual and official capacity,
KARA KENNEDY, in her individual and official capacity,
VIRGINIA FREED, in her individual and official capacity,
NITA HUNT, in her individual and official capacity,
BRENT PIERCE, in his individual and official capacity, and
LUKE HOLLAND, in his individual capacity,
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 August 12, 2021 [Docket No. 83]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 83 at 7; See also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on August 12, 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

Case 1:20-cv-03495-PAB-MEH Document 96 Filed 09/07/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

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. 83] is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause for A Preliminary Injunction
[Docket No. 75] is DENIED; and
3. Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1).

DATED September 7, 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).
2