Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

JIMENEZ v. MARTZ, 11-cv-00948-PAB-CBS. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20120323f00 Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer filed on February 23, 2012 [Docket No. 48]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 23, 2012 and, after plaintiff filed a notification o
More

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer filed on February 23, 2012 [Docket No. 48]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 23, 2012 and, after plaintiff filed a notification of address change [Docket No. 49], an additional copy was sent to plaintiff's new address on February 27, 2012. 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. 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, I have reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have 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 [Docket No. 48] is ACCEPTED.

2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 26] is granted.

3. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

FootNotes


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).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer