Brooks v. Reynolds

D. Colorado

Brooks v. Reynolds

DecidedMarch 10, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-02162

StatusUnknown

This text of Brooks v. Reynolds (Brooks v. Reynolds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. Reynolds, (D. Colo. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 20-cv-02162-PAB-SKC JASON BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. TERESA REYNOLDS, DONALD CANFIELD, JEFF LONG, DEAN WILLIAMS, JOHN DOE, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, and COLORADO SUPREME COURT, Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation re: Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 101] filed on February 17, 2022. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 101 at 6; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 17, 2022. 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 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 re: Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 101] is ACCEPTED; 2. The Colorado Supreme Court’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 67] is GRANTED; and 3. Plaintiff’s fifth claim, against the Colorado Supreme Court, is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DATED March 10, 2022. BY THE COURT:

___________________________ PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

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). 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 20-cv-02162-PAB-SKC JASON BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. TERESA REYNOLDS, DONALD CANFIELD, JEFF LONG, DEAN WILLIAMS, JOHN DOE, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, and COLORADO SUPREME COURT, Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation re: Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 101] filed on February 17, 2022. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 101 at 6; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 17, 2022. 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 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 re: Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 101] is ACCEPTED; 2. The Colorado Supreme Court’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 67] is GRANTED; and 3. Plaintiff’s fifth claim, against the Colorado Supreme Court, is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DATED March 10, 2022. BY THE COURT:

___________________________ PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

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). 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brooks v. Reynolds, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-reynolds-cod-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack