Burris v. Comcast of Colorado IX, LLC, et al

Filing 104

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, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 10-cv-01265-WJM-BNB KOLLEEN BURRIS, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC.; and MARK BIRKHOLZ, in all capacities, Defendants. 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: 1. The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 103), filed February 22, 2012, is ACCEPTED; 2. Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Hold Case in Administrative Abeyance (ECF No. 101) is GRANTED; 3. 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 4. All pending motions (ECF Nos. 16, 80 & 81) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dated this 9th day of March, 2012. BY THE COURT: William J. Martínez United States District Judge 2

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?