Gruis v. Herald et al
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 24 RECOMMENDATION. Defendants' 14 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is granted. This case and the claims contained therein are dismissed. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 1/17/14.(mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02132-PAB-MJW
DAVID B. DILLON, and
THE KROGER CO., d/b/a Kroger Shared Service Center-Hutchinson,
d/b/a Dillon Companies, Inc., d/b/a City Market,
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe filed on December 30, 2013 [Docket No. 24].
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 December 30, 2013. No party has objected to the
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. 24] is
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Docket No. 14]
3. This case and the claims contained therein are dismissed.
DATED January 17, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
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).
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?