Rodriguez v. Unknown Mesa County Sheriff's Deputies et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 23-cv-02283-PAB-STV
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN MESA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES, and
UNKNOWN S.W.A.T. AGENTS,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 95]. The Recommendation states that objections to the
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.
Docket No. 95 at 6 n.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was
served on January 26, 2026. 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. 1:23-cv-02283-PAB-STV Document 96 filed 02/20/26 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. 95] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Prisoner
Complaint and Jury Demand [Docket No. 92] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. It is further
ORDERED that this case is closed.
DATED February 20, 2026.
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. 1:23-cv-02283-PAB-STV Document 96 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2