Mostafa v. Barr

Opinion

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

Criminal Case No. 20-cv-00694-PAB-NYW

MOSTAFA KAMEL MOSTAFA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM BARR, U.S. Attorney General, CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI Director, MICHAEL CARVAJAL, BOP Director, B. TRUE, ADX Warden, in his official capacity, TUTTOILMUNDO, H-Unit Manager at ADX, MACMILLAN, ADX Facilities Department, GUY, ADX Legal Department, FOLLOWS, ADX Medical Department Manager, KUNDUF, ADX Kitchen Manager, UNKNOWN SAMs OPERATIVES, Managers/Workers, DR. STERETT, ADX Medical Department, PARRY, ADX Officer, AVERIT, ADX Officer, GARDUNO, ADX Lieutenant, LOEWE, ADX Officer, NORJANO, ADX Officer, OSAGE, ADX Medical PA, HUDELSTON, ADX Nurse, JOHN AND JANE DOES et al, ADX Co., ARMEJO, ADX Lieutenant, WILLIAM, ADX Nurse, and HENSEN, ADX Officer,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Recommendation”) filed on January 26, 2022 [Docket No. 177]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 177 at 7-8 n.4; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on January 26, 2022. 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 [Docket No. 177] is ACCEPTED; 2. This case is administratively closed pursuant D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2., subject to being reopened for good cause shown; and

1This 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). 2 3. The parties shall either file a joint status report or a motion to re-open with the Court within 90 days from the date of this order. 4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12 (b)(6) [Docket No. 96] is DENIED without prejudice.

5. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgement for Failure to Exhaust [Docket No. 102] is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED February 15, 2022.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________ PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge