Hamilton v. Merit Energy Company

Filing 29

ORDER Adopting and Affirming September 6, 2011 Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, 22 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Defendant Merit Energy Company's Renewed Motion to Dismiss 17 is GRANTED and all claims asserted by plaintiff are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion for Continuation of Facts 25 is denied as Moot, by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 11/4/11.(lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 10-cv-03003-RBJ-CBS
MARK HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERIT ENERGY COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 RECOMMENDATIONS
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the September 6, 2011 Recommendations by
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer that defendant Merit Energy Company’s Renewed Motion to
Dismiss, Doc. # 17, be granted and that all claims asserted by plaintiff against defendant Merit
Energy Company in the Complaint be dismissed. Doc. # 1.1 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Doc. # 22. Despite
this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s Recommendation were filed by
either 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

1

On March 16, 2011 Magistrate Judge Shaffer held a preliminary Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference during which
he suggested to Mr. Hamilton that the original Complaint was problematic. The Magistrate Judge granted plaintiff’s
oral motion for leave to amend the Complaint. However, no amended complaint was filed.

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 has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning defendant Merit Energy
Company’s Motion to Dismiss and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court
concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s thorough and comprehensive analyses and
recommendations are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of
The United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge, Doc. # 22, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that defendant Merit
Energy Company’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss, Doc. # 17, be GRANTED and all claims
asserted by plaintiff are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ordered that plaintiff’s
Motion for Continuation of Facts, Doc. # 25, is denied as Moot.
DATED this 4th day of November, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge