Wilkins v. Palomino et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 20-cv-03495-PAB-STV
DARUS WILKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN PALOMINO, in his individual and official capacity,
CHRIS CHAVEZ, in his individual and official capacity,
KARA KENNEDY, in her individual and official capacity,
NITA HUNT, in her individual and official capacity,
BRENT PIERCE, in his individual and official capacity,
MR. SMITH, in his official capacity,
LUKE HOLLAND, in his individual and official capacity,
DR. THIELY, in his individual and official capacity,
MS. DILLMAN, in her individual and official capacity, and
JANE GILDEN, in her individual and official capacity,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak filed on April 13, 2013 [Docket No. 216]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 216 at 12-13 n.9; see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on April 14, 2023. Docket
No. 217. 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
Case No. 1:20-cv-03495-PAB-STV Document 219 filed 06/06/23 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

2
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 Scott T. Varholak
[Docket No. 216] is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendant Dr. Thiele’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint [Docket No. 205] is GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Dr. Jonathan Thiele are DISMISSED; and
4. Defendant Dr. Jonathan Thiele is dismissed from this case.
DATED June 6, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
1 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).
Case No. 1:20-cv-03495-PAB-STV Document 219 filed 06/06/23 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2