IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Daniel D. Domenico

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00284-DDD-SKC

JOSEPH E. GATES,

Plaintiff, v.

HUFF, C/O, CSP; LT. MASCARENAS, CSP; and LT. JOHNSON, INTEL, CSP,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is the recommendation (Doc. 43) of United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews that the Court grant Defendants’ mo- tion for summary judgment (Doc. 35) for failure to exhaust administra- tive remedies. The recommendation states that objections to the recom- mendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. (Doc. 43 at 7 (citing

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)).) The recommendation was served on February 4, 2021 at Plaintiff’s address of record at the Colorado State Penitentiary. On Feb- ruary 12, 2021, the recommendation was returned to the Court with a note that Plaintiff had been paroled. (Doc. 44.) The Court obtained Plaintiff’s new address and re-served the recommendation at that ad- dress on March 4, 2021. (Doc. 45; Doc. 46.) No party has objected to the recommendation. In the absence of a timely objection, the Court may review a magis- trate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. Summers v. Utah,

(10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn,

(1985)). In this matter, the Court has re- viewed 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 that review, the Court has concluded that the recom- mendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. As Judge Crews determined, Plaintiff did not comply with prison grievance proce- dure deadlines, and he has therefore procedurally defaulted on the Prison Litigation Reform Act requirement to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing his claims.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: The Recommendation re: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judg- ment [#35] (Doc. 43) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Doc. 35) is GRANTED; and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 31) is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED: March 31, 2021 BY THE COURT:

Hon. Daniel D. Domenico