Garcia v. Wolever et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01936-CNS-KAS
JOSHUA OMAR GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT WOLEVER, and
SGT GOBLE,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge
Kathryn Starnella issued on January 7, 2026, recommending that Defendant Goble’s
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 63, be granted and that Plaintiff’s Claim Five against
Defendant Goble be dismissed without prejudice. See ECF No. 45 (Recommendation) at
11. Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant Goble’s dismissal motion, and he did not
object or otherwise respond to the Recommendation. For the following reasons, the Court
AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.
The parties were advised that they had 14 days, after being served with a copy of
the Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the
District Judge assigned to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); ECF No. 70 at 11–12.
Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Starnella Recommendation.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01936-CNS-KAS Document 71 filed 01/30/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), this Court may designate a magistrate judge to
consider motions and submit recommendations to the Court. When a magistrate judge
submits a recommendation, the Court must “consider timely objections and modify or set
aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a).1 When—as is the case here—a party does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation, the Court “may review a magistrate [judge]’s report under any standard
it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991)
(citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). The Court is “accorded considerable
discretion” when reviewing “unchallenged” recommendations. Id.
After reviewing all the relevant pleadings, the Court concludes that Magistrate
Judge Starnella’s analysis was thorough and comprehensive, the recommendations are
well-reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly,
the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Starnella’s Recommendation, ECF
No. 70, in its entirety as an order of this Court. Defendant Goble’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF
No. 63, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Claim Five, brought against Defendant Goble, is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
1 Recommendations for dispositive motions, in contrast, are considered under 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(B), and
the District Court must review these recommendations de novo under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1462 (10th Cir. 1988).
Case No. 1:23-cv-01936-CNS-KAS Document 71 filed 01/30/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
DATED this 30th day of January 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:23-cv-01936-CNS-KAS Document 71 filed 01/30/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3