Montez et al v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company
ORDER ADOPTED re 43 the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations.; denying 33 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order; denying 34 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the Complaint, by Judge William J. Martinez on 9/12/2012.(ervsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01894-WJM-MEH
ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
ORDER ADOPTING JULY 30, 2012 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER, AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court on the July 30, 2012 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 43) that
Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 33) and Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking
Leave of Court to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 34) 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.1 (ECF
No. 43, at 1 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been filed by either party (over a period of more than six
The Court’s internal records confirm that the Recommendation was electronically
mailed to counsel for both parties.
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 (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991)
(“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report
under any standard it deems appropriate.”).
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 43) is ADOPTED in its
Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 33) is DENIED; and
Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Leave of Court to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 34) is
Dated this 12th day of September, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?