Elliott et al v. Thompson National Properties, LLC et al

Filing 52

ORDER adopting 51 Report and Recommendations and denying in part plaintiffs' opposed motion to amend complaint. by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/4/2013.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 13-cv-0160-WJM-BNB
DARRELL S. ELLIOTT,
DIANE ELLIOTT, and
DARRELL S. ELLIOTT PSP
Plaintiffs,
v.
THOMPSON NATIONAL PROPERTIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
TNP 12% NOTES PROGRAM, LLC,
TNP STRATEGIC RETAIL TRUST, INC., and
ANTHONY W. THOMPSON
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

This matter is before the Court on the September 18, 2013 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 51)
that Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Amend Complaint be granted in part and denied in
part. (ECF No. 42.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were
due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation.1 (ECF
No. 51, at 7 n.4.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been received.
1

The Court’s internal records confirm that the Recommendation was electronically
mailed to counsel for both parties.

The Court concludes that 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 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.”).
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 51) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED insofar as the Plaintiffs
seek to add the Third Claim for violations of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs
motion is GRANTED in all other respects;
Dated this 4th day of November, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2