Richardson v. Citigroup Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER. The 26 Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is accepted. Defendant's 18 Motion to Compel is granted. This case is administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. Either party may move to reopen this case at the conclusion of the Arbitration for good cause shown. By Judge William J. Martinez on 8/21/12.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-0485-WJM-KMT
JACOB RICHARDSON
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIGROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

This matter is before the Court on the July 25, 2012 Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya that Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 18) be granted. (ECF No. 26.) 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. (ECF
No. 26 at 9-10.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have been filed. “In the absence of timely objection, the district court
may review a magistrate . . . [judge’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) (stating 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”).
The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s thorough and comprehensive
analyses and recommendations are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face
of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the
Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the
findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is ACCEPTED;

2.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED; and

3.

This case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.
Either party may move to reopen this case at the conclusion of the Arbitration for
good cause shown.
Dated this 21st day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2