JOSHUA OMAR GARCIA v. SGT WOLEVER, and SGT GOBLE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01936-CNS-KAS JOSHUA OMAR GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. SGT WOLEVER, and SGT GOBLE, Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Kathryn Starnella issued on January 7, 2026, recommending that Defendant Goble’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 63, be granted and that Plaintiff’s Claim Five against Defendant Goble be dismissed without prejudice. See ECF No. 45 (Recommendation) at 11. Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant Goble’s dismissal motion, and he did not object or otherwise respond to the Recommendation. For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.

The parties were advised that they had 14 days, after being served with a copy of the Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge assigned to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); ECF No. 70 at 11–12.

Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Starnella Recommendation.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), this Court may designate a magistrate judge to consider motions and submit recommendations to the Court. When a magistrate judge submits a recommendation, the Court must “consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).1 When—as is the case here—a party does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court “may review a magistrate [judge]’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). The Court is “accorded considerable discretion” when reviewing “unchallenged” recommendations. Id. After reviewing all the relevant pleadings, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Starnella’s analysis was thorough and comprehensive, the recommendations are well-reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Starnella’s Recommendation, ECF No. 70, in its entirety as an order of this Court. Defendant Goble’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 63, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Claim Five, brought against Defendant Goble, is DISMISSED without prejudice.

1 Recommendations for dispositive motions, in contrast, are considered under 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(B), and the District Court must review these recommendations de novo under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1462 (10th Cir. 1988).

DATED this 30th day of January 2026.

BY TH □ OURT: Af ( rerio eney United States-District Judge