Valles v. Gen-X Clothing No 63 et al

Filing 54

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 48 and Report and Recommendations 53 . granting 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and denying 41 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify. by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 10/30/2013.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00201-RM-KLM
HILLARY VALLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEN-X ECHO B, INC. d/b/a GENX,
MARTIN COLLAZO RANGEL, and
EAGLE CLAW SECURITY LLC and ARACELI GALEOTE, its owner,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF NOS. 48 & 53)
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (1) the September 27, 2013
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“First Recommendation”) (ECF No. 48) on
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Her Third Amended Complaint by Adding New Party
Defendant GenX Clothing, Inc.” (ECF No. 41); and (2) the October 8, 2013 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge (“Second Recommendation”) (ECF No. 53) on Defendant Gen-X
Echo B, Inc.’s “Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)” (ECF No. 12) (collectively,
“Recommendations”). The Recommendations are incorporated herein by reference. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

The Recommendations advised the parties that specific written objections were due
within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendations. (ECF No. 48,
pages 12-13 & No. 53, page 17.) No objections to the Recommendations have to date been filed
by any party and the time to do so has expired.
The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in both Recommendations was
thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error of law or abuse of discretion. 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,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

The Magistrate Judge=s First Recommendation (ECF No. 48) and Second
Recommendation (ECF No. 53) are ADOPTED in their entirety and made
an order of this Court;

2.

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File her Third Amended Complaint by
Adding New Party Defendant GenX Clothing, Inc. (ECF No. 41) is DENIED;
and

2

3.

Defendant Gen-X Echo B, Inc.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for
negligent hiring and negligent retention is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 30th day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

3