Kohout v. Bank of America Home Loans et al

Filing 19

ORDER accepting the 18 Amended Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Defendants' 5 Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case is dismissed. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 8/22/11.(mnf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02811-PAB-CBS
DAVID R. KOHOUT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS;
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY NA
SUCCESSOR TO COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, DALLAS, TX;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; and
QUICKEN LOANS, INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Amended Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer filed on July 29, 2011 [Docket No. 18]. 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 July 29, 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. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Amended Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket
No. 18] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 5] is GRANTED and this case is
dismissed.

DATED August 22, 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