Susinka v. Trujillo ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 19-cv-02190-PAB-MEH STEPHEN SUSINKA, Plaintiff, v. A. TRUJILLO, Lieutenant, and J. WILCOX, Correctional Officer, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on October 21, 2020 [Docket No. 65]. 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 21, 2020.1 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 1 The Recommendation was mailed to plaintiff on October 21, 2020 at Florence High U.S. Penitentiary, P.O. Box 7000, Florence, CO 81226. On November 9, 2020, the Clerk’s Office received a notice of change of address for the plaintiff as well as the recommendation returned as undeliverable. Docket Nos. 66 and 67. On November 12, 2020, the Clerk’s Office mailed the Recommendation to plaintiff at Pollock High U.S. Penitentiary, P.O. Box 2099, Pollock, LA 71467. Docket No. 68. 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.”2 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 Michael E. Hegarty [Docket No. 65] is ACCEPTED; and 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Treat Amended Complaint as a New Action [Docket No. 63] is DENIED. DATED December 15, 2020. BY THE COURT: ____________________________ PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge 2 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).