Jones v. Stancil

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Nina Y. Wang Civil Action No. 24-cv-00750-NYW-TPO CHAD JONES, Plaintiff, v. MOSES STANCIL, DR. JESSICA KRUEGER, JEREMIAH VELASQUEZ, KRISTOPHER LOVE, JANE GILDEN, BAINBRIDGE, SOPHIE MOORE, and CHRISTOPHER BUCHANAN,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O’Hara issued on July 2, 2025. [Doc. 73]. Judge O’Hara recommends denying the CDOC Officials’ Rule 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. 43], as moot. [Doc. 73 at 4–5]. Judge O’Hara explains that because Plaintiff has now filed his Second Amended Complaint, [Doc. 72], it would be “overall more efficient and the record more clear to deny the motion as moot with leave to refile,” [Doc. 73 at 4]. Judge O’Hara further recommends that the Clerk of Court be directed to update the case caption to reflect the omission of Defendants Jeremiah Velasquez, Bainbridge, Sophie Moore, and Christopher Buchanan from the Second Amended Complaint. [Id. at 5]; see also [Doc. 72 at 1]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after its service on the Parties. [Id. at 4 n.2]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No Party has objected to the Recommendation and the time to do so has elapsed.

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 judge’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’s note to 1983 amendment. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and a correct application of the facts and the law.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Timothy P. O’Hara [Doc. 73] is ADOPTED; (2) The CDOC Officials’ Rule 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 43] is DENIED as moot; (3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendants Jeremiah

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). Velasquez, Bainbridge, Sophie Moore, and Christopher Buchanan from this case; and (4) The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to: Chad Jones #160427 Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility (AVCF) 12750 Highway 96 at Lane 13 Ordway, CO 81034

DATED: September 26, 2025 BY THE COURT:

_________________________ Nina Y. Wang United States District Judge