Riley v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

Filing 24

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 23 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.s Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 9 is GRANTED; Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registra tion Systems, Inc. are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and Defendants request for an award of costs and attorney fees contained within the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature, by Judge William J. Martinez on 1/15/2013.(ervsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 12-cv-0821-WJM-BNB FRANCES RILEY, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., and, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING DECEMBER 7, 2012 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING DEFENDANT MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS This matter is before the Court on the December 7, 2012 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 23) that Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) be granted. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) any party may serve and file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado within fourteen days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. No objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation have to date been filed by either party. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”). In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 23) is ADOPTED in its entirety; 2. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and 4. Defendant’s request for an award of costs and attorney fees contained within the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. Dated this 15th day of January, 2013. BY THE COURT: _________________________ William J. Martínez United States District Judge 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?