Filed: Jan. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on December 20, 2011 [Docket No. 21]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on December 20, 2011. No party has objected to the Recommendat
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on December 20, 2011 [Docket No. 21]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on December 20, 2011. No party has objected to the Recommendati..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on December 20, 2011 [Docket No. 21]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on December 20, 2011. 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. 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, I have reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have 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. 21] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 18] is granted.
3. This case is dismissed.
