Maurice D. Cooper v. Arapahoe County Sheriff Department, Aurora Police Department, Michael Leon, Eric Martinez, Mario Duran Giner, Jonathan Cardenas, Theodore Velez, Andy Tran, Caleb Christensen, and Chadrick Allen, Jr.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Nina Y. Wang

Civil Action No. 25-cv-000154-NYW-KAS

MAURICE D. COOPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARAPAHOE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, AURORA POLICE DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL LEON, ERIC MARTINEZ, MARIO DURAN GINER, JONATHAN CARDENAS, THEODORE VELEZ, ANDY TRAN, CALEB CHRISTENSEN, and CHADRICK ALLEN, JR,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge issued by the Honorable Kathryn A. Starnella on July 26, 2026. [Doc. 114]. Judge Starnella recommended that Defendant Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“Motion”) [Doc. 80] be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. [Doc. 114 at 5]. Specifically, Judge Starnella recommended that the Motion be granted because the operative complaint is devoid of any allegations against any Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office employees or regarding any Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office policy, practice, or custom. [Id. at 3–4]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the Parties. [Id. at 5–6]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on July 26, 2026. See [Doc. 114]. 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 Judge [Doc. 114] is ADOPTED; (2) Defendant Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. 80] is GRANTED; and

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). (3) Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Arapahoe County Sheriffs Office are DISMISSED without prejudice.

DATED: August 20, 2026 BY THE COURT: yh iy Y. Wang / ) United States District Judge