Gibson v. TT of Woodmen, Inc.

Filing 12

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 2/29/12 11 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge; granting 5 Motion to Stay. Status Report due by 6/19/2012. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 3/21/2012. The Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this action pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.(jjpsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00002-CMA-MEH
BRADON GIBSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TT OF WOODMEN, INC., a Colorado corporation,
d/b/a WOODMEN NISSAN,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING FEBRUARY 29, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72. (Doc. # 2.) On February 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation
(Doc. # 11), advising that the Motion for a Stay and to Compel Arbitration (Doc. # 5),
filed by Defendant on January 23, 2012, be granted. The Recommendation stated that
“all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file any
written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this
case is assigned.@ (Doc. # 11 at 1 n.1.) It also advised the parties that “failure to file
such written objections . . . may bar the party from a de novo determination by the
District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. @ (Id.) Neither party
has filed objections.

“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 A[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.
The Court further finds that this action, instead of being left open for an
indefinite period pending arbitration, should be administratively closed pursuant
to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, with leave to be reopened for good cause.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (Doc. # 11) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant=s January 23, 2012 Motion for a Stay and
to Compel Arbitration (Doc. # 5) is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSE this action pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. It is

2

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have leave to file a request to reopen
this action, or shall file a motion to dismiss, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the
arbitrator’s order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report every ninety
(90) days, beginning June 19, 2012.
DATED: March

21

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3