Summary
holding sufficiently serious conditions where plaintiff, for two hours, was required to "clean up a raw sewage spill that was not limited to his own human waste, without any protective equipment that would have protected him from coming into physical contact with the waste"
Summary of this case from Washington v. MartinezOpinion
Civil Action No. 17-cv-02596-PAB-NYW
08-20-2018
CHRISTOPHER M. ORWIG, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT STEPHEN LADD, Sterling Correctional Facility Corrections Officer (Official and Individual Capacity), Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang filed on July 26, 2018 [Docket No. 39]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on July 26, 2018. 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) ("[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"). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." 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
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). --------
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 39] is accepted.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Docket No. 29] is granted.
3. This case is closed.
DATED August 20, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge