Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01658-PAB-BNB
09-20-2011
NOUR GRIFFIN EVANS Plaintiff, v. R. DOIZAKI, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY L. EMERSON, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY D. THOMPSON, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY S. BANCROFT, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY D. KLEINHEKSEL, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY C. WENzEl, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY T. BAHRS, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY B. KNUDSEN, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY S. ROLEN, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY K. ELLEDGE, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, PH D. COHEN, individually and in his official capacity as Contract Doctor for Arapahoe County, NURSE T. GOSS, individually and in his official capacity as Contract Nurse for Arapahoe County, NURSE T. SICOTTE, individually and in her official capacity as Contract Nurse for Arapahoe County, CIVIL SERVANT E. MYERS, individually and in her official capacity as Contract Employee for Arapahoe County, Defendants.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland filed on August 29, 2011 [Docket Nos. 69, 70, and 71]. The Recommendations state that objections to the Recommendations must be filed within fourteen days after service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendations were served on August 29, 2011. No party has objected to any of the Recommendations.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("[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"). In this matter, I have reviewed the Recommendations to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have concluded that the Recommendations are a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is
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).
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 69] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants [sic] Dr. Cohen's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Prisoner Complaint [Docket No. 38] is GRANTED.
3. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 70] is ACCEPTED.
4. Defendant Sicotte's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Prisoner Complaint [Docket No. 54] is GRANTED.
5. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 71] is ACCEPTED.
6. Defendants Goss and Myers's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 32] is GRANTED.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge