Echenique v. Goodwill, Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 61 RECOMMENDATION. Defendant's 51 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute is granted. Defendant's 41 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement is denied as moot. This case and the claims contained therein are dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/4/14.(mfiel, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13cv00556-PAB-MJW
IVETTE T. ECHENIQUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF DENVER,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe filed on January 16, 2014 [Docket No. 61]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on January 17, 2014. No party has objected to the
Recommendation.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)
(“[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”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the

Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has
concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 61] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute [Docket No. 51] is
GRANTED.
3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, or in the
Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement [Docket No. 41] is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. This case and the claims contained therein are dismissed with prejudice for
failure to prosecute.

DATED February 4, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

1

This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
2