IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 25-cv-00665-PAB-CYC

STEVEN ANGELO APODACA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAGRELIUS CLARK, sergeant, STEPHEN GILES, correctional officer, ISOM, correctional officer, IRENE RAWLS, nurse practitioner, DEBRA SHAFER, nurse practitioner, MICHELLE BRODEUR, medical director, and LACY MONDAY, medical director,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 69]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 69 at 2 n.1; see also

(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on September 10, 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,

(10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn,

(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.”' 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 United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 69] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's claims two and three of the amended complaint, Docket No. 9, are DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that defendants Irene Rawls, Debra Shafer, Michelle Brodeur, and Lacy Monday are dismissed from this case. DATED September 30, 2025. BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

' 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).