Frazier v. Zavaras et al
Filing
97
ORDER Adopting and Affirming 96 Report and Recommendations: 76 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, this case is dismissed with prejudice, and in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of appeal, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 3/5/13.(dkals, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02534-CMA-KMT
KEITH FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUSAN BARKER, Librarian, BCCF,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING FEBRUARY 11, 2013
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 9.) On February 11,
2013, Judge Tafoya issued a Recommendation, advising that Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. # 76) be granted. (Doc. # 96 at 11.) The Recommendation
stated that “[w]ithin fourteen days after service of a copy of the Recommendation, any
party may serve and file written objections . . . .” (Id.) It also informed the parties that
“[f]ailure to make timely objections may bar de novo review by the district judge of the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations . . . .” (Id. at 11-12.)
No party has filed objections.
“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s
report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165,
1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (observing
that “[i]t 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”)). Having reviewed the Recommendation
and the filings to which it pertains, the Court discerns no clear error on the face of the
record and finds that Judge Tafoya’s reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (Doc. # 96) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an
Order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
# 76) is GRANTED, and the claims against Defendant are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the certification procedure of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and,
therefore, in forma pauperis status is DENIED for purposes of appeal. If Plaintiff files
a notice of appeal, he must pay the full $455 appellate filing fee or file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
within 30 days of the Court’s final order in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Finally,
it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the case is now DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE IN
ITS ENTIRETY.
DATED: March
05
, 2013
BY THE COURT:
_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
