Calderon v. City and County of Denver et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00756-PAB-MEH
LISA CALDERÓN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
MICHAEL HANCOCK,
JESS VIGIL,
ANDREA ALBO, and
REGINA HUERTER,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 155]. The Recommendation states that objections to the
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.
Docket No. 155 at 8 n.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was
served on March 28, 2025. 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. 1:18-cv-00756-PAB-CYC Document 164 filed 04/14/25 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. 155] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Supplemental
Complaint [Docket No. 135] is DENIED.
DATED April 14, 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. 1:18-cv-00756-PAB-CYC Document 164 filed 04/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2