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. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
REYNA, 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 26, 2024 [Docket No. 306]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 306 at 11-12 n.3; see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on January 26, 2024, and the
deadline for objections was extended to April 26, 2024.1 	No party has objected to the
Recommendation.
1 On February 7, 2024, Mr. Johnson requested a 30-day extension of time to file an
objection to the Recommendation, Docket No. 314, which the Court granted, extending
the deadline to object to the Recommendation to March 6, 2024. Docket No. 317. On
February 26, 2024, Mr. Johnson requested an additional 60-day extension of time to file
an objection to the Recommendation, Docket No. 326, which the Court granted,
extending the deadline to object to the Recommendation to April 26, 2024. Docket No.
328.
Case No. 1:20-cv-00459-PAB-CYC Document 342 filed 05/10/24 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

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
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. 306] is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for Plaintiff’s
Refusal to Attend his Deposition [Docket No. 268] is GRANTED;
3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice; and
4. This case is closed.
DATED May 10, 2024.
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).
Case No. 1:20-cv-00459-PAB-CYC Document 342 filed 05/10/24 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2