Dimick v. Garland

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 24-cv-02521-PAB-KAS

CHRISTOPHER RYAN DIMICK, individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAM BONDI, (DOJ) United States Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, acting in her official capacity, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 45]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 45 at 20; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on August 14, 2025. 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.”' 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 that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 45] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that Utah State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Memorandum in Support [Docket No. 17] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 26] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that Utah State Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff's Filing of his Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 34], construed as a Motion to Strike, is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 28] is STRICKEN. It is further ORDERED that this case is closed. DATED September 4, 2025. BY THE COURT: we < Le PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

' 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).