Filed: Mar. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 3, 2011 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, Judge. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 9.) On November 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 68) concerning the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings or, in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Plaintiff's Ame
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 3, 2011 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, Judge. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 9.) On November 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 68) concerning the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings or, in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Plaintiff's Amen..
More
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 3, 2011 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, Judge.
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 9.) On November 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 68) concerning the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings or, in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 36), filed by Defendants Colorado Hi-Tec Moving & Storage, Inc., Kevin Dickens, and Karen A. Dickens.1 The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion be granted and that the case be stayed pending completion of arbitration. (Doc. # 68 at 21.) Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the Recommendation (Doc. # 70), and Defendants subsequently responded (Doc. # 74).
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter,2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to." In conducting its review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id. Accordingly, the Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter, including carefully reviewing all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, and Plaintiff's Objections thereto.
Based on this de novo review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is correct and finds that it is not called into question by Plaintiff's Objections.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 68), filed November 3, 2011, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court.
2. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. # 70), filed November 16, 2011, are OVERRULED.
3. Pursuant to the Recommendation, the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings or, in the Alternative, Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 36), filed by Defendants Colorado Hi-Tec Moving & Storage, Inc., Kevin Dickens, and Karen A. Dickens is GRANTED, and this case is STAYED pending completion of arbitration of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants.
