Gibson v. TT of Woodmen, Inc.

Filing 23

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 22 Report and Recommendations: 18 Motion to Reopen Case and Amended Motion to Compel Specific Performance Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 70 is granted in part and denied in part by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 6/13/13.(dkals, )

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 MAY 22, 2013
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 May 22, 2013, Judge Hegarty issued a Recommendation (Doc.
# 22), advising that the “Motion to Reopen Case and Amended Motion to Compel
Specific Performance Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 70,” filed by Defendant on May 2, 2013
(Doc. # 18), be granted in part and denied in part. 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. # 22 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 Judge
Hegarty’s reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (Doc. # 22) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an
Order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant=s May 2, 2013 “Motion to Reopen Case
and Amended Motion to Compel Specific Performance Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 70”
(Doc. # 18) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) the motion is
GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the Clerk of the Court shall REOPEN this case
for the sole purpose of allowing the Court to adjudicate Defendant’s motion to compel
specific performance; and (2) the motion is DENIED IN PART as to Defendant’s motion
to compel specific performance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 70(a). Finally, it is

2

FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.
DATED: June

13

, 2013
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3