Stroeder v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 35

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 34 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendants Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint under 12 (b)(6) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiffs Slander of Credit (Count 2), Fraud (Cou nt 5) and Outrageous Conduct (Count 7) Claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 12(b)(6); and This action remains pending as to Plaintiffs Slander of Title (Count 1), Patterns and Practice and Breach of Contract (Count 3), Negligence (Count 4), Defamation (Count 6), and Quiet Title (Count 8) Claims only, by Judge William J. Martinez on 3/12/2013.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01743-WJM-KLM
TERRI LYNN STROEDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING FEBRUARY 7, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the February 7, 2013 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 34)
that Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint be granted in part and
denied in part. 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. 34 at 21.) Despite this advisement, 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. 34) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under 12(b)(6) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

(3)

Plaintiff’s Slander of Credit (Count 2), Fraud (Count 5) and Outrageous Conduct
(Count 7) Claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 12(b)(6); and

(4)

This action remains pending as to Plaintiff’s Slander of Title (Count 1), Patterns
and Practice and Breach of Contract (Count 3), Negligence (Count 4), Defamation
(Count 6), and Quiet Title (Count 8) Claims only.
Dated this 12th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2