Nicholas J. Hall v. Sergeant Thompson and Officer Rivera

Opinion

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

Civil Action No. 25-cv-00752-PAB-NRN

NICHOLAS J. HALL,

Plaintiff, v.

SERGEANT THOMPSON, and OFFICER RIVERA,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 57]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 57 at 9-10; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on June 17, 2026. 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.”' 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 that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 57] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that defendants Sergeant Thompson and Office Rivera’s Motion for Partial Dismissal [Docket No. 41] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's second claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's third and fourth claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. DATED July 14, 2026. BY THE COURT: ae PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge

' 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).