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-MEH
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,
VIRGINIA FREED, in her individual 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 Michael E. Hegarty filed on December 21, 2021 [Docket No. 149].
The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 149 at 16; See also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on December 21, 2021. 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
Case No. 1:20-cv-03495-PAB-STV Document 154 filed 01/18/22 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

2
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.”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. 149] is ACCEPTED;
2. Defendant Virginia Freed’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 110] is
GRANTED;
3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Virginia Freed are DISMISSED with
prejudice; and
4. Defendant Virginia Freed is dismissed from this case.
DATED January 18, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
1This 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 154 filed 01/18/22 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2