United States District Court, D. Colorado
December 29, 2014
JOE RAMIREZ, Plaintiff,
SHERIFF JOHN COOKE, UNDER SHERIFF JACK McGRATH, BUREAU CHIEF STERLING GEESAMAN, and COMMANDER GREGORY BROSWELL, Defendants.
R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the December 3, 2014 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer [ECF No. 44] to grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 38]. 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. Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Recommendation was filed by either party. "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 (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.")).
The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analyses and recommendations are correct, and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Shaffer [ECF No. 44] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 38] is GRANTED. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1 defendants are awarded their costs.