Herren v. Lappegaard, 18-cv-00209-CMA-KLM. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20180822a04
Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE JULY 30, 2018, RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the July 30, 2018 Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (Doc. # 31), wherein she recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 14). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE JULY 30, 2018, RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the July 30, 2018 Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (Doc. # 31), wherein she recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 14). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after ..
More
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE JULY 30, 2018, RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the July 30, 2018 Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (Doc. # 31), wherein she recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 14).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 31 at 25-26.) Despite this advisement, no party filed objections to Magistrate Judge Mix's Recommendation. "In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing 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.")).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Recommendation thereon, in addition to applicable portions of the record and relevant legal authority. It is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mix (Doc. # 31) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED;
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 14) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
3. Claim Four with respect to Defendant Lucero and Claim Five in its entirety are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
4. Claim One with respect to Defendants Firestone and Lucero; Claim Two in its entirety; Claim Three with respect to Defendants Firestone and Lucero; and Claim Six in its entirety are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
5. Claims One, Three, and Four with respect to Defendants Warren and Lappegaard remain as alleged in the Complaint (Doc. # 4).
Source: Leagle
