Filed: Dec. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION PHILIP A. BRIMMER , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on December 8, 2016. No party has objected to the Recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judg
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION PHILIP A. BRIMMER , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on December 8, 2016. No party has objected to the Recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on December 8, 2016. 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) ("[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"). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record."1 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 as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 64] is accepted.
2. The Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 12] filed by defendants McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, Jennifer Cruseturner, Joan Olson, and Holly R. Shilliday is granted, to the extent it seeks dismissal of plaintiffs' FDCPA claim. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining claims and dismisses them without prejudice.
3. The Motions to Dismiss filed by defendants Adams County, Colorado and Adams County Public Trustee Susan A. Orrechio [Docket No. 13], Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. [Docket No. 16], and District Court for Adams County, Suzanne Fredrickson, and Frederick Michael Goodbee [Docket No. 33] are denied as moot.
4. The Motions to Strike [Docket Nos. 36, 45, 57, and 61] are denied as moot.
5. This case is closed.
