You're viewing Docket Item 42 from the case Miller v. Foster et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:12-cv-02525-RM-MJW Document 42 Filed 06/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Raymond P. Moore



Plaintiff,


Civil Action No. 12-cv-02525-RM-MJW

JELANI LATEEF MILLER,



v.

ANTHONY FOSTER, #86035 sued in his official and individual capacity,
SCOTT MATTOS, #01051 sued in his official and individual capacity, and
SAMUEL STIGLER, III, #05024 sued in his official and individual capacity,


______________________________________________________________________________


Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING APRIL 23, 2013 RECOMMENDATION ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT [sic] (ECF No. 36) AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT [sic] (ECF No. 22)
______________________________________________________________________________


THIS MATTER is before the Court on the April 23, 2013 Recommendation

(“Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (“Magistrate

Judge”) (ECF No. 36) that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement [sic] (ECF No. 22) be

denied. 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 days (14) after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 36.) The

parties were initially served on April 23, 2013. Subsequently, the Court received mail addressed

to Plaintiff returned as undeliverable and Plaintiff’s notice of change of address. (ECF No. 37 &

No. 38) On April 30, 2013, Plaintiff was served with the Recommendation at his new address.

(ECF No. 39.) No objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by any party.

Case 1:12-cv-02525-RM-MJW Document 42 Filed 06/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2



The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and sound, and

that there is no clear error of law or abuse of discretion. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory

committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there

is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also

Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of timely objection, the

district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”).

















In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation (ECF No. 36) is ADOPTED in its

entirety and made an order of this Court; and

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement [sic] (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.



DATED this 4th of June, 2013.



BY THE COURT:
































_______________________________
Raymond P. Moore
United States District Judge

2