Ajaj v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:15-cv-02849
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 15-cv-02849-RM-TPO

AHMAD MOHAMMAD AJAJ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, and D. SHEPARD,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O’Hara (ECF No. 459) to deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s Expedited Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 352). Plaintiff, a federal prisoner in the custody of Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), initiated this pro se action in 2015. His current Motion pertains to his claim against Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons for interfering with his medical diet in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Further explication is provided in the Recommendation. (ECF No. 2-5.) As explained in the Recommendation, Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing of either irreparable harm or a likelihood that he will succeed on the merits of his claim. The Recommendation advised that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. Although the Court extended the deadline for any such objection, Plaintiff still has not filed one. “In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court discerns no error on the face of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that the pending Motion should be denied without prejudice. See Gallegos v. Smith, 401 F. Supp. 3d 1352, 1356-57 (D.N.M. 2019) (applying deferential review of the magistrate judge’s work in the absence of any objection); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Denying his Motion without prejudice will allow Plaintiff to file a renewed motion based on further developments should he wish to do so. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 459), and Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 352) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 29th day of September , 2025. BY THE COURT:

Senior United States District Judge