Abiakam v. Quest Corporation

Filing 48

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendations re 47 Report and Recommendations; granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 5/4/12.(cmacd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 10-cv-03086-CMA-BNB
GODWIN ABIAKAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
QWEST CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING APRIL 12, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 13.) On April 12, 2012,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation, advising that Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment “be granted and that summary judgment enter in favor of the
defendant on all of the plaintiff’s claims.” (Doc. # 47 at 20 (emphasis deleted).)
The Recommendation stated that “the parties have 14 days after service of this
recommendation to serve and file specific, written objections.” (Id.) It also informed the
parties that “failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo review of
the recommendation by the district judge . . . .” (Id. at 20-21.) Neither party has filed
objections.
AIn 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) (observing

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”)). Having reviewed the Recommendation,
the Court discerns no clear error on the face of the record and finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (Doc. # 47) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Pursuant
to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
# 30) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED: May

04

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2