Vreeland v. Carson ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 18-cv-03165-PAB-SKC DELMART E.J.M. VREELAND, II, Plaintiff, v. DESIREE VIGIL, THEODORE L. LAURENCE, JAMMIE FELLHAUER, LINDA PARO, VANESSA CARSON, LISA HANKS, LINDSAY GOUTY, DOCTOR MAUL, MOUNTAIN PEAKS UROLOGY, P.C., CHRSTOPHER T. HARRIGAN, M.D., JENNIFER HARRIGAN, ASHLEY REEDER, CARLEY DAVIES, BRANDY R. KNESKI, CORRECTIONAL HEALTH PARTNERS, INC, HALL & EVANS, LLC, ANDREW RINGLE, LAURA PEARSON, KRISTIN A. RUIZ, JULIE TOLLESON, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews filed on October 5, 2020 [Docket No. 169]. 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 5, 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.”1 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 ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews [Docket No. 169] is ACCEPTED; 2. Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Hearing and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 65 Injunction [Docket No. 149] is DENIED AS MOOT. DATED October 27, 2020. BY THE COURT: ____________________________ PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge 1This 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).