Johnson v. Reyna

Opinion

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

Civil Action No. 20-cv-00459-PAB-MEH

JABARI J. JOHSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNA, WARGO, and KORIN,

Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on January 25, 2021 [Docket No. 49]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 49 at 10; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on January 25, 2021. Docket No. 49. Plaintiff requested an extension of time to object to the Recommendation. Docket No. 50. The Court granted plaintiff’s request and provided plaintiff until February 22, 2021. Docket No. 51. 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 of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty [Docket No. 49] is ACCEPTED; 2. Defendant Wargo’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 44] is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff’s official-capacity claim for damages against defendant Wargo is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 4. Plaintiff’s individual-capacity claim against defendant Wargo is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED March 4, 2021.

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).