United States of America v. Welch et al

Filing 102

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 101 Report and Recommendations, and granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 4/8/13.(dkals, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 11-cv-02292-CMA-KLM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES D. WELCH, and AMRA WELCH, as nominee/alter ego of James D. Welch, Defendants. 1 ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MARCH 13, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 2.) On March 13, 2013, Judge Mix issued a Recommendation, advising the Court to grant in part and deny in part the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Jim D. Welch and Amra Welch (Doc. # 63) (Doc. # 101). The Recommendation stated that “the parties shall have ten (10) days after service of this Recommendation to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned.” (Id. at 36.) It further informed the parties that “failure to serve and file specific, written 1 On December 19, 2012, default judgment was entered against former Defendants CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. and Jim D. Welch, as Executive Trustee of Celestial Pursuits Trust. (Doc. # 94.) As such, the caption on subsequent filings in this matter shall reflect the removal of those parties from this case. objections waives de novo review of the Recommendation by the District Judge.” (Id.) Nonetheless, neither party has filed objections. 2 “In 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 Judge Mix’s reasoning is sound. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (Doc. # 101) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Jim D. Welch and Amra Welch (Doc. # 63) is GRANTED IN PART as to both the validity of the tax lien and the authority of the United States to foreclose said lien against the Real Property at issue in this case, and DENIED IN PART without prejudice as to the full amount sought by the Government ($6,601,594.09). As such, it is 2 Generally, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), parties are given 14 days to submit objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation. In the instant case, any error in Judge Mix’s statement that the parties would have only 10 days to submit such objections was harmless, because the Court has waited 21 days since the Recommendation to issue its ruling. 2 FURTHER ORDERED that, within 21 days of this Order, the Government shall file either (1) a motion for summary judgment regarding the amount of Defendant Welch’s liability, or (2) a motion to set the Final Pretrial Conference. DATED: April 08 , 2013 BY THE COURT: ________________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge 3

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?