U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lunn et al

Filing 54

ORDER adopting 53 Report and Recommendations. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 7/14/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02767-RM-BNB
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEOFFREY H. LUNN,
DARLENE A. BISHOP, and
VINCENT G. CURRY,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER RE
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF NO. 53)
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge (“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 53) to administratively close this case subject to
reopening for good cause. The Recommendation was based on the issues in this case and the
parties’ Joint Status Report (ECF No. 52) informing the Court that the resolution of those issues
will be affected by the outcome of a pending parallel criminal prosecution against Defendant
Lunn. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by this reference. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Magistrate Judge advised the parties they had fourteen days after the service of a
copy of the Recommendation to serve and file written objections to the Recommendation. The
time permitted for any objections has expired and no objections to the Recommendation have
been filed.

The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, the parties’ Joint Status Report, and
relevant portions of the Court’s file, and concludes 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 Notes (“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.”). It is therefore ORDERED
1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 53) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED in its entirety;
2. Any pending motion is hereby terminated without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this civil action subject to
reopening for good cause.
DATED this 14th day of July, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2