Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

SARDAKOWSKI v. CLEMENTS, 12-cv-01326-RBJ-KLM. (2013)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20130702a01 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 01, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 01, 2013
Summary: ORDER R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the March 26, 2013 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix [docket #92]. As relevant here, the Recommendation addresses defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#79]. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of th
More

ORDER

R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the March 26, 2013 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix [docket #92]. As relevant here, the Recommendation addresses defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#79]. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Mix's Recommendation was filed by either party. "In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing 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.")).

The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analyses and recommendations are correct, and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#92] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff's claims for retrospective declaratory relief are DISMISSED without prejudice, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#79] is DENIED.

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