Bynes v. Liberty Acquisitions Servicing, LLC
Filing
41
ORDER Adopting and Affirming 35 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant's 10 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DENIED. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 01/30/13. (alvsl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00950-RBJ-KLM
EUGENE BYNES,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the November 8, 2012 Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Kristen L. Mix [docket #35]. As relevant here, the Recommendation addresses defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [#10]. 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Despite this
advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Mix’s Recommendation was filed by either party.
“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 has reviewed the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation.
Because matters outside the pleadings were considered, the motion to dismiss is treated as a
motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). That is a difference in form, not
substance. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analyses and recommendations are
correct, and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of The United States
Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge [#35] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint [#10] is DENIED.
DATED this 30th day of January, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge
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?