From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pittman v. City of Aurora

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Nov 10, 2020
Civil Action No. 19-cv-01947-PAB-NRN (D. Colo. Nov. 10, 2020)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 19-cv-01947-PAB-NRN

11-10-2020

TEDDY PITTMAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF AURORA, OFFICER KEVIN PALACIO, OFFICER DARIAN DASKO, OFFICER DANIEL VEITH, and OFFICER RYAN BURKE, Defendants.


ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter filed on October 23, 2020 [Docket No. 109]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on October 23, 2020. 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

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 N. Reid Neureiter [Docket No. 109] is ACCEPTED;

2. Defendant City of Aurora's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand [Docket No. 90] is DENIED; and

3. Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendants Palacio, Dasko, Veith, and Burke [Docket No. 93] is DENIED. DATED November 10, 2020.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Pittman v. City of Aurora

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Nov 10, 2020
Civil Action No. 19-cv-01947-PAB-NRN (D. Colo. Nov. 10, 2020)
Case details for

Pittman v. City of Aurora

Case Details

Full title:TEDDY PITTMAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF AURORA, OFFICER KEVIN PALACIO…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Nov 10, 2020

Citations

Civil Action No. 19-cv-01947-PAB-NRN (D. Colo. Nov. 10, 2020)

Citing Cases

Turner v. Garcia-Serna

. Nov. 17, 2016) (considering video recording at 12(b)(6) stage where the parties asked the Court to review…

Thomas v. City of Aurora

Pittman v. City of Aurora, No. 19-cv-01947-PAB-NRN, 2020 WL 6586659, at *3 (D. Colo. Oct. 23, 2020), report…