Stakely v. Astrue, No. 1:2011cv01455 - Document 16 (D. Colo. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendations. Based on its review of the Recommendation and documents in the file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analyses and recommendations are correct, and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of The United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. The Court enters final judgment dismissing this case and all claims therein with prejudice, each party to bear his own costs and fees. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 11/21/12. (alvsl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable R. Brooke Jackson Civil Action No. 11-cv-01455-RBJ-BNB MARLIN D. STAKELY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER This matter is before the Court on the October 30, 2012 Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland [docket #15] to affirm Commissioner Michael Astrue’s conclusion that the plaintiff, Marlin Stakely, is not disabled under the Social Security Act. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Doc. #15 at 20 n. 6. No objections to Magistrate Judge Boland’s Recommendation were filed by either party. “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge’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) (stating 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”)). Based on its review of the Recommendation and documents in the file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analyses and recommendations are correct, and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of The United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. The Court enters final judgment dismissing this case and all claims therein with prejudice, each party to bear his own costs and fees. DATED this 21st day of November, 2012. BY THE COURT: ___________________________________ R. Brooke Jackson United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
