General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley et al

Filing 428

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 426 RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's 410 Amended Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt for Multiple Violations of the Court's Injunction is denied. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/6/13.(mnfsl, ) Modified on 12/6/2013 to add ruling on motion (mnfsl, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01398-PAB-KLM
GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC SALES, LLC,
d/b/a General Steel Corporation, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
ETHAN DANIEL CHUMLEY, individually, and
ATLANTIC BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC, a Delaware corporation,
doing business as Armstrong Steel Corporation,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
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 November 15, 2013 [Docket No. 426] that
plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt for Multiple Violations of
the Court’s Injunction [Docket No. 410] be denied. The Recommendation states that
objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service
on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on
November 15, 2013. 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. See 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, the Court has reviewed the
Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has
concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 426] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt for Multiple
Violations of the Court’s Injunction [Docket No. 410] is DENIED.

DATED December 6, 2013.
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