Doe v. Maloit

Sep 1, 2026
1:24-cv-02383

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE‘S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Order and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 126]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 126 at 7-8; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on July 29, 2026. No party has objected to the Recommendation.1

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 to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”2 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 Order and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 126] is ACCEPTED. It is further

ORDERED that Defendant‘s Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Plaintiff‘s Claims [Docket No. 91] is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff‘s claims 1, 2, and 3 are DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further

ORDERED that the portion of Defendant‘s Motion for Sanctions [Docket No. 87] that moves for the dismissal of plaintiff‘s claims as a sanction is DENIED as moot.3

DATED September 1, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Notes

1
On August 26, 2026, plaintiff, now represented by counsel, filed a response to the magistrate judge‘s order to show cause as to why the court should not further sanction plaintiff for her submission of defective legal citations. See generally Docket No. 141. However, plaintiff does not object to the magistrate judge‘s recommendation that the Court grant defendant‘s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff‘s claims. See id.
2
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).
3
Because the Court will grant defendant‘s motion for summary judgment, his request that plaintiff‘s claims be dismissed as a sanction is moot. Defendant also moves for attorney‘s fees as a sanction. See Docket No. 126 at 2 n.4. The magistrate judge granted that request, see id. at 23-24, and defendant filed his motion for attorney‘s fees on August 25, 2026, which awaits a response from plaintiff and plaintiff‘s former counsel, Randee Stapp. See Docket Nos. 139, 145.