Johnson v. Reyna et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 20-cv-00459-PAB-MEH
JABARI J. JOHSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
REYNA,
WARGO, and
KORIN,
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 January 25, 2021 [Docket No. 49]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 49 at 10; see 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on January 25, 2021. Docket No.
49. Plaintiff requested an extension of time to object to the Recommendation. Docket
No. 50. The Court granted plaintiff’s request and provided plaintiff until February 22,
2021. Docket No. 51. 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-00459-PAB-CYC Document 53 filed 03/04/21 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 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 Michael E. Hegarty
[Docket No. 49] is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendant Wargo’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 44] is GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff’s official-capacity claim for damages against defendant Wargo is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
4. Plaintiff’s individual-capacity claim against defendant Wargo is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED March 4, 2021.
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-00459-PAB-CYC Document 53 filed 03/04/21 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2