United States District Court, D. Colorado
November 21, 2014
MEL BOMPREZZI, Plaintiff,
GRAHAM HOFFMAN, Dr., JULIE MEEKER, Dr., LISA TOEPP, Dr., POUNDS, Dr., and DEQUARDO, Dr., Defendants
Mel Bomprezzi, Plaintiff, Pro se, Pueblo, CO.
For Graham Hoffman, Dr., Julie Meeker, Dr., Lisa Toepp, Dr., Pounds, Dr., DeQuardo, Dr., Defendants: Christopher Wayne Alber, Colorado Attorney General's Office, Denver, CO.
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 28, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, United States District Judge.
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. (Doc. # 13.) On October 28, 2014, Judge Boland issued a Recommendation, advising the Court to deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 28). (Doc. # 52.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Id. at 5.) Despite this advisement, no party has objected to Magistrate Judge Boland's Recommendation. " In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate'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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (observing 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")). Having reviewed the Recommendation, the Court discerns no clear error on the face of the record and finds that Judge Boland's reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (Doc. # 52) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 28) is DENIED.