Nesmith v. Roundy

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 23-cv-01220-PAB-MDB
KEYON NESMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADRIANNA ROUNDY,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 66]. The Recommendation states that objections to the
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.
Docket No. 66 at 11-12; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was
served on December 31, 2024. 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
Case No. 1:23-cv-01220-PAB-MDB Document 68 filed 02/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

2
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 that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket
No. 66] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant Roundy’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure
to Exhaust Administrative Remedies [Docket No. 43] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that this case is closed.
DATED February 4, 2025.
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. 1:23-cv-01220-PAB-MDB Document 68 filed 02/04/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2