Filed: Apr. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FEBRUARY 19, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT WILLIAM J. MART NEZ , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the February 19, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 52) that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 35) be granted in part and denied in part. 1 The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. S
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FEBRUARY 19, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT WILLIAM J. MART NEZ , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the February 19, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 52) that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 35) be granted in part and denied in part. 1 The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. Se..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FEBRUARY 19, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the February 19, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 52) that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 35) be granted in part and denied in part.1 The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Despite Judge Watanabe's favorable ruling, Defendants filed their objections to the Recommendation on February 24, 2015. (ECF No. 54.) Defendants argue that, should the Court disagree with Judge Watanabe's holding, the Court should nonetheless dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on an alternative basis. (Id.) However, the Court concludes that Judge Watanabe's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Recommendation.2 Because the Court adopts the Recommendation that both of Plaintiff's claims be dismissed, the Court does not reach Defendants' alternative argument as to why its Motion to Dismiss should be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ("In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate.").
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) Judge Watanabe's Recommendation (ECF No. 52) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
(2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent specified in Judge Watanabe's Recommendation;
(3) Defendants' Objections (ECF No. 54) are DENIED AS MOOT;
(4) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) is DISMISSED; and
(5) The Clerk of the Court shall close this case, and enter judgment in favor of Defendants. Each party shall bear his or her own costs.
