Huggins v. Buchannan - Order Accepting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation

D. Colorado Opinions

Filed March 2nd, 2026

Detected March 7th, 2026

Summary

The District Court of Colorado accepted a Magistrate Judge's recommendation in Huggins v. Buchannan, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court reviewed the recommendation without objection and found no clear error.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

This document is a court order from the District Court of Colorado in the case of Huggins v. Buchannan (Docket No. 1:24-cv-02403). Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer issued an order accepting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Docket No. 53) and denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint (Docket No. 30). The court reviewed the recommendation under a standard of "no clear error on the face of the record" as no objections were filed by the parties within the fourteen-day period after service.

For legal professionals involved in this case, the primary implication is that the defendant's motion to dismiss has been denied, and the case will proceed. The court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation indicates that the magistrate's findings and conclusions are considered correct. No new compliance actions are required for external entities, as this is a procedural ruling within a specific legal case.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Anthony Huggins v. Christopher Buchannan

District Court, D. Colorado

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 1:24-cv-02403
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Opinion
Authorities (2)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 24-cv-02403-PAB-TPO

ANTHONY HUGGINS,

Plaintiff,

CHRISTOPHER BUCHANNAN,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 53]. The Recommendation states that objections to the
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.

Docket No. 53 at 12 n.8; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was
served on February 10, 2026. 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) (“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 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket
No. 53] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant Buchannan’s Motion to Dismiss amended Complaint
[Docket No. 30] is DENIED.
DATED March 2, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
ia Sf
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).