David A. Bovino, P.C. et al v. MacMillan et al

Filing 133

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 129 RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiffs' 113 (public entry Docket No. 116) Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is denied. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/20/14.(mfiel, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 12-cv-00551-PAB-MEH DAVID A. BOVINO P.C., d/b/a Law Offices of Bovino & Associates, a Colorado corporation, and DAVID A. BOVINO, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. PATRICIA A. MACMILLAN, an individual, and CHRISTINA MACMILLAN, an individual, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on January 30, 2014 [Docket No. 129]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on January 30, 2014. No party has objected to the Recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“[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”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 129] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 113] (public entry Docket No. 116) is DENIED. DATED February 20, 2014. BY THE COURT: s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge 1 This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 2

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?