Filed: Aug. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the August 5, 2019 Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 51) (1) to deem the claims which Plaintiff dropped in its Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52) to be dismissed without prejudice, as a condition of allowing such amendment; and (2) to remand this case to the Denver District Court from where it was removed. The Recommendation is incorporated here
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the August 5, 2019 Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 51) (1) to deem the claims which Plaintiff dropped in its Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52) to be dismissed without prejudice, as a condition of allowing such amendment; and (2) to remand this case to the Denver District Court from where it was removed. The Recommendation is incorporated herei..
More
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the August 5, 2019 Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 51) (1) to deem the claims which Plaintiff dropped in its Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52) to be dismissed without prejudice, as a condition of allowing such amendment; and (2) to remand this case to the Denver District Court from where it was removed. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 51, p. 9.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by any party and the time to do so has expired. (See generally Dkt.)
The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Neureiter's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ("In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate."). The Recommendation is, therefore, adopted as an order of this Court.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court:
(1) ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation contained in the Order and Recommendation (ECF No. 51) in its entirety;
(2) DEEMS Plaintiff's libel per se, interference with prospective business relations, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and Lanham Act trade disparagement claims to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
(3) DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and REMANDS this case to the District Court, Denver County, Colorado, where it was originally filed as Civil Action No. 2018CV32793.
