Rueb v. Stancil et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 24-cv-03014-PAB-STV
JUSTIN RUEB,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOSES ANDRE STANCIL,
DEAN WILLIAMS, and
MARK FAIRBAIRN,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 45]. The Recommendation states that objections to the
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.
Docket No. 45 at 17 n.12; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation
was served on November 6, 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. 1:24-cv-03014-PAB-STV Document 46 filed 12/03/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

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. 45] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that defendants Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Docket No.
24] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against defendants Moses Andre
Stancil and Mark Fairbairn, in their official capacities, are DISMISSED without
prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against defendant Dean Williams, in
his individual capacity for monetary damages, are DISMISSED with prejudice. It is
further
ORDERED that the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state
law claims and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. 2 It is further
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).
2 Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-111(1), if claims are properly commenced within
the statute of limitations and involuntarily dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction, the
plaintiff “may commence a new action upon the same cause of action within ninety days
after the termination of the original action or within the period otherwise allowed by this
article, whichever is later.” See also Artis v. D.C., 583 U.S. 71, 74-75 (2018) (holding
that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) tolls the statute of limitations for state law claims asserted
under § 1367(a) during the pendency of the federal litigation in which such claims are
brought and for thirty days following involuntary dismissal of those claims on
jurisdictional grounds).
Case No. 1:24-cv-03014-PAB-STV Document 46 filed 12/03/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
ORDERED that this case is closed.
DATED December 3, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
Case No. 1:24-cv-03014-PAB-STV Document 46 filed 12/03/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3