Sherwood v. BRT Corporation

Filing 63

ORDER adopting 48 Report and Recommendations and granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 1/15/2015.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 12–cv–02782–RM–KMT
KENNETH SHERWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRT CORPORATION, d/b/a The Advantage Group, d/b/a Professional Affiliates Company,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 48)
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the November 5, 2014, Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 48). The
Recommendation grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 27).
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. 48 at 18–19).
Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by either
party. Rather than objecting, Plaintiff, proceeding with counsel, submitted a “Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation” on August 14, 2014. (ECF No.
55). Defendant’s Response was filed on September 4, 2014. (ECF No. 58). Plaintiff’s Reply was
filed on September 17, 2014. (ECF No. 60). Judge Tafoya then denied Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration on November 5, 2014. (ECF No. 62). Neither party has filed objections to Judge
Tafoya’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

As Plaintiff elected to move for reconsideration by the Magistrate Judge rather than filing
objections for this Court’s review, Judge Tafoya’s Recommendation is reviewed under a clear
error, and not a de novo, standard. 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.”). This Court finds that Judge
Tafoya’s analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the
record. The Recommendation is, therefore, adopted.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 48) is ADOPTED in its entirety;

(2)

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, pursuant to Judge Tafoya’s findings in her Recommendation;
DATED this 15th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2