Margheim v. Buck et al

Filing 79

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 72 is ADOPTED in its entirety; and Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend ECF No. 61 , seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, is DENIED, by Judge William J. Martinez on 8/13/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-1520-WJM-BNB
TERRY MARGHEIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMELA BULJKO, DDA,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING JULY 9, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

This matter is before the Court on the July 9, 2014 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 72) that
Plaintiff’s Motion to for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 61) be denied. In his Motion, Plaintiff
seeks leave to file his proposed Second Amended Complaint. 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.1 (ECF
No. 72, at 5 n.3.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been received.
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.

1

The Court’s internal records confirm that the Recommendation was electronically
mailed to counsel for both parties.

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. 72) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 61), seeking leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint, is DENIED.
Dated this 13th day of August, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2