Granite Southlands Town Center, LLC v. Alberta Town Center, LLC et al

Filing 288

ORDER ADOPTING 258 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 210 Motion for Attorney Fees. By Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr on 3/13/13.(mnfsl, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
-------------------------------------------------------X
GRANITE SOUTHLANDS
TOWN CENTER,
Plaintiff,
09 CV 799 (SJ) (KLM)
-against-

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

ALBERTA TOWN CENTER, LLC,
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY,
PETER M. CUDLIP, and
DONALD G. PROVOST,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
98 San Jacinto Boulevard
Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
By:
Paul D. Trahan
Osbourne J. Dykes, III
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JONES & KELLER PC
1999 Broadway
Suite 3150
Denver, CO 80202
By:
Aaron David Goldhammer
Stuart N. Bennett
Attorneys for Defendant Alberta Town Center, LLC
ROBINSON WATERS & O’DORISIO, P.C.
1099 18th Street
Granite Tower #2600
Denver, CO 80202
By:
Kimberly A. Bruetsch
Attorneys for Defendant Land Title Guarantee Company
1

JOHNSON, Senior District Judge:
Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
prepared by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. Judge Mix issued the Report on
January 25, 2012, and provided the parties with the requisite amount of time to file
any objections. Neither party filed any objections to the Report. For the reasons
stated herein, this Court affirms and adopts the Report in its entirety.
A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and
determine certain motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court
proposed findings of fact and a recommendation as to the disposition of the motion.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 10 days of service of the recommendation, any
party may file written objections to the magistrate’s report. See id. Upon de novo
review of those portions of the record to which objections were made, the district
court judge may affirm or reject the recommendations. See id. The Court is not
required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and
recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections may waive the
right to appeal this Court=s Order. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Small v. Sec=y of
Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

2

In this case, there have been no objections to the Report. Upon review of the
recommendations, this Court adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Mix=s Report in
its entirety.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2013
Brooklyn, NY

_________/s/___________________
Senior United States District Judge

3