Henry v. Bank of New York Mellon, The, 16-cv-02144-PAB-STV. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20180111a86
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2018
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 Scott T. Varholak filed on December 5, 2017 [Docket No. 72]. The 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 5, 2017. No party has objected to the Recommendation
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 Scott T. Varholak filed on December 5, 2017 [Docket No. 72]. The 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 5, 2017. No party has objected to the Recommendation...
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 Scott T. Varholak filed on December 5, 2017 [Docket No. 72]. The 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 5, 2017. 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. 72] is accepted.
2. This case is remanded to the El Paso County District Court, where it was filed as Case No. 2016CV268.
FootNotes
1. This standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Source: Leagle