Rowe v. United Airlines, Inc.
Filing
33
ORDER Adopting and Affirming 31 Report and Recommendations: 12 Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV of Plaintiffs Complaint is denied, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 8/2/13.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00055-CMA-BNB
MINGYI ROWE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JULY 12, 2013
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 8.) On July 12, 2013,
Judge Boland issued a Recommendation, advising the Court to deny Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. # 31.) The
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation advised the parties that specific written
objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the
Recommendation. (Id. at 5.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate
Judge Boland’s Recommendation have been filed by either party. AIn the absence of
timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it
deems appropriate.@ Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (observing that A[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@)). Having reviewed the Recommendation, the Court discerns no clear error
on the face of the record and finds that Judge Boland=s reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (Doc. # 31) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order
of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts III and IV of
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DENIED.
DATED: August
02
, 2013
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
2
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?