Filed: Jan. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL, Senior District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States' Writ of Continued Garnishment (ECF No. 76), filed April 7, 2014, and Defendant Dallas Ray Ratcliff's Claim of Exemption (ECF No. 79), filed May 8, 2014. These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Watanabe, who issued a Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 84), filed June 27, 2014, and is incorporat
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL, Senior District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States' Writ of Continued Garnishment (ECF No. 76), filed April 7, 2014, and Defendant Dallas Ray Ratcliff's Claim of Exemption (ECF No. 79), filed May 8, 2014. These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Watanabe, who issued a Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 84), filed June 27, 2014, and is incorporate..
More
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILEY Y. DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States' Writ of Continued Garnishment (ECF No. 76), filed April 7, 2014, and Defendant Dallas Ray Ratcliff's Claim of Exemption (ECF No. 79), filed May 8, 2014. These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Watanabe, who issued a Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 84), filed June 27, 2014, and is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D.C.COLO.LCivR. 72.1. Magistrate Judge Watanabe recommended therein that Defendant Dallas Ray Ratcliff's Claim of Exemption (ECF No. 79) be denied, and that the United States' Writ of Continued Garnishment (ECF No. 76) be continued.
Magistrate Judge Watanabe advised the parties that written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[i]t 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record."2 See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation (ECF No. 84), I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I find that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and sound.
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration of the matters before the Court, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Watanabe's Recommendation (ECF No. 84) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. As such, Defendant Dallas Ray Ratcliff's Claim of Exemption (ECF No. 79) is DENIED, and the United States' Writ of Continued Garnishment (ECF No. 76) is continued.
