Ashenfelter v. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. et al

Filing 15

ORDER re: 13 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's case is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Public Trustee's 6 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) is denied as moot. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/28/11.(mnf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00977-PAB-KLM
PATRICIA ASHENFELTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDYMAC BANK, FSB,
THOMAS S. MOWLE, PUBLIC TRUSTEE,
DEUTSHE [sic] BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
ONEWEST BANK, FSB,
MERS,
QUICKEN LOANS, a Corporation, doing business in the State of Colorado,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix filed on July 6, 2011 [Docket No. 13]. 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). 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
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

2.

Defendant Public Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) [Docket No. 6] is DENIED as
moot.

DATED July 28, 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