Truman v. Brannan Sand Gravel Co.

Filing 75

ORDER accepting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant's 55 Objection to Certain Relief/Content Included by Plaintiff in Proposed Final Pretrial Order is sustained to the extent that it objects to plaintiff's inclusio n of requests for relief pertaining to attorneys' fees, lost wages, prejudgment interest, compensatory damages or punitive damages in the proposed Final Pretrial Order. Defendants' objections are otherwise overruled. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 8/29/11.(mnf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00801-PAB-KLM
KEITH TRUMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANNAN SAND [AND] GRAVEL CO.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix filed on June 23, 2011 [Docket No. 73]. 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 June 23, 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. Therefore, the Court
will accept the Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket
No. 73] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that defendant’s Objection to Certain Relief/Content Included by
Plaintiff in Proposed Final Pretrial Order [Docket No. 55] is sustained to the extent that
it objects to plaintiff’s inclusion of requests for relief pertaining to attorneys’ fees, lost
wages, prejudgment interest, compensatory damages or punitive damages in the
proposed Final Pretrial Order. Defendants’ objections are otherwise overruled.

DATED August 29, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

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).
2