Colorado Casualty Insurance Company v. Infinity Land Corporation et al

Filing 93

ORDER that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge BolandECF No. 92 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Reopen ECF No. 90 is GRANTED, and this action is reopened for further proceedings, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 4/25/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.

12-cv-02748-WYD-BNB

COLORADO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
INFINITY LAND CORPORATION, a dissolved Colorado corporation,
H2 LAND CO, LLC, a dissolved Colorado limited liability company,
HOWARD FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a dissolved Colorado liability company,
JONATHAN HOWARD,
PAUL HOWARD,
KF 103 CV, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
WILLIAM MARCHANT,
MAUREEN M. MARCHANT,
WILLIAM E. HOWELL, as Successor Trustee of the MARILYN J. HOWELL TRUST,
C. ARLENE NANCE,
WILLIAM PECK,
DARRELL H. OLIVER,
KELLY ANN OLIVER, and
SUSAN HANSON,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (“Recommendation”), filed April 9, 2014. (ECF No. 92). In the
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Boland recommends that the Unopposed Motion to
Reopen be granted for good cause shown. (Recommendation at 1-2). The
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. ' 36(b)(1)(B),
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Magistrate Judge Boland advised the parties that written objections were due
within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation.
(Recommendation at 2). Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the
Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review
the Recommendation Aunder any standard [I] deem[] appropriate.@ Summers v. Utah,
927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I
review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of
the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on
the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Boland=s Recommendation is
thorough, well reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Boland that this
matter should be reopened for good cause shown.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boland
(ECF No. 92) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 90) is GRANTED,

1

Note, 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).

-2-

and this action is reopened for further proceedings.
Dated: April 25, 2014
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge

-3-