U.S. v. OLSEN, 14-cv-03302-WJM-KLM. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20150610g07
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAY 22, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DENYING DEFENDANT OLSEN'S MOTION TO DISMISS WILLIAM J. MART NEZ , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the May 22, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 29) that Defendant Carl F. Olsen's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) be denied. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Recommen
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAY 22, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DENYING DEFENDANT OLSEN'S MOTION TO DISMISS WILLIAM J. MART NEZ , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the May 22, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 29) that Defendant Carl F. Olsen's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) be denied. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Recommend..
More
ORDER ADOPTING MAY 22, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DENYING DEFENDANT OLSEN'S MOTION TO DISMISS
WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the May 22, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 29) that Defendant Carl F. Olsen's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) be denied. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 29, at 7.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been received.
The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. 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) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 29) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
(2) Defendant Olsen's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
