Case Information
*1 Case No. 1:18-cv-00756-PAB-CYC Document 164 filed 04/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2 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 *2 Case No. 1:18-cv-00756-PAB-CYC Document 164 filed 04/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 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). 2