Burris v. Comcast of Colorado IX, LLC, et al
ORDER The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 103), filed February 22, 2012, is ACCEPTED; Defendants Unopposed Motion to Hold Case in Administrative Abeyance ECF No. 101 is GRANTED; The Clerk shall administratively close this case pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 subject to reopening for good cause, if appropriate, after the approval of the settlement by the Bankruptcy Court; and All pending motions ECF Nos. 16 , 80 & 81 are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, by Judge William J. Martinez on 3/9/2012.(ervsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01265-WJM-BNB
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC;
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC.; and
MARK BIRKHOLZ, in all capacities,
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING MOTION TO
HOLD CASE IN ADMINISTRATIVE ABEYANCE
This matter is before the Court on the February 22, 2012 Recommendation by
United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland that Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to
Hold Case in Administrative Abeyance be granted. (ECF No. 103.) The
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation was filed on February 22, 2012 and advised the parties
that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a
copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 65 at 25-26.) Despite this advisement, no
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation have to date been filed by any
party. “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . .
[judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d
1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating
that “[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”). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation and finds that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 103),
filed February 22, 2012, is ACCEPTED;
Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Hold Case in Administrative Abeyance (ECF
No. 101) is GRANTED;
The Clerk shall administratively close this case pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR
41.2 subject to reopening for good cause, if appropriate, after the approval of the
settlement by the Bankruptcy Court; and
All pending motions (ECF Nos. 16, 80 & 81) are DENIED WITHOUT
Dated this 9th day of March, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?