Sheppard v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Office Detention Facility

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: August 6, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-03373
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

Civil Action No. 20-cv-03373-CMA-SCC

CRAIG SCOT SHEPPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE DETENTION FACILITY, WELLPATH, and JEFF SHRADER, Sheriff,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the July 14, 2021 Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Re: Wellpath’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 44), wherein United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews recommends that this Court grant Defendant Wellpath’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Prisoner Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. # 26). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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. # 44 at 8.) Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Crews’s Recommendation has been filed by any party. “[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 Crews, 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 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 44) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court; • Defendant Wellpath’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Prisoner Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. # 26) is GRANTED; • Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Wellpath are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1275 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that when a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, dismissal with

prejudice is only appropriate “where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend” (quotation omitted)); and e Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Jefferson County Sheriff's Office Detention Facility and Jeff Shrader remain.

DATED: August 6, 2021 BY THE COURT:

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge