Melnick v. Marlow

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 21-cv-03316-CMA-KLM HUNTER ADAM MELNICK, Plaintiff, v. SARAH MARLOW, Director of RSA, Inc., TONYA GAMBLIN, CPO, ELISE PATE, Therapist of RSA, Inc., NATHANYA AHAMED, Clinical Director of RSA, Inc., THERESA MITCHELL, CPO of DOC, MELISSA LAWRENCE, CTL of DOC, JANE DOE, CPO of DOC, HALL, CPO of DOC, HARDGROVE, CPO of DOC, JOHN DOE, Washington County Sheriff, CAPTAIN STIVERS, Washington County, and WASHINGTON COUNTY,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 4, 2022, RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the October 4, 2022, Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 66), wherein Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. # 44) be denied without prejudice. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court affirms and adopts the Recommendation for the following reasons. The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 66 at 3-4.) Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Mix’s Recommendation has been filed. “[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t 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”)). After reviewing the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mix, in addition to applicable portions of the record and relevant legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: • The October 4, 2022, Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 66) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court; and • Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. # 44) is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. DATED: October 25, 2022 BY THE COURT:

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO Senior United States District Judge