Stroh Ranch Development, LLC v. Cherry Creek South Metropolitan District No. 2 et al

Filing 153

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 132 is ADOPTED in its entirety; and The Metropolitan District Defendants Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer ECF No. 103 is DENIED, by Judge William J. Martinez on 3/9/2012.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02216-WJM-KLM
STROH RANCH DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2,
CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 3,
CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 4,
CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 5,
CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 6,
CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 7,
CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 8,
CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 9,
CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 10,
CHERRY CREEK SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 11,
THE PIVOTAL GROUP, INC.,
PIVOTAL PARKER INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company a/k/a Parker
Investments 2009, LLC,
PIVOTAL COLORADO II, LLC,
NORTH PARKER INVESTMENTS, LLC,
KURT WOLTER,
KIMBERLY JENSEN,
GREG MCILVAIN,
MARK EAMES,
GREG EPP,
BILLY HARRIS, and
JOHN DOES 1 through 8,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FEBRUARY 2, 2012 RECOMMENDATION
AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

This matter is before the Court on the February 2, 2012 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 132)
-1-

that the Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer filed by Cherry Creek South
Metropolitan Districts Nos. 2-11 (the “Metropolitan District Defendants”) (ECF No. 103)
be denied. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were
due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF
No. 39, at 9-10.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been filed by either party (over a five-week period). “In
the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’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 concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and
sound, and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee’s note.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 132) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and

(2)

The Metropolitan District Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer
(ECF No. 103) is DENIED.

-2-

Dated this 9th day of March, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

-3-