Myers et al v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Filing 108

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 84 Report and Recommendations. by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 55/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00701-RM-BNB
WALTER MYERS,
KATHERINE MYERS,
AMANDA WEAKLAND, and
PATRICK WEAKLAND
Plaintiffs,
v.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an agency of the United States,
Defendant, and
PARK CENTER WATER DISTRICT,
Defendant-Intervenor.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
ADOPTING FEBRUARY 12, 2014, RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF NO. 84)
AND GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANT BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT’S
AMENDED MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT
(ECF NO. 26)
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge (ECF No. 84) on Defendant Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) Amended Motion
for Partial Dismissal of the Complaint (ECF No. 26). Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
recommended that Plaintiffs’ Second Claim for Relief be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs’ Third Claim for Relief and request for civil penalties be dismissed as
they have been withdrawn. 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 they had 14 days to serve and file specific,
written objections to the Recommendation. (ECF No. 84, page 6 n.2.) No objection was filed to
the Recommendation and the time to do so has expired.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and the file, and 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.”). It is therefore
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 84) is ADOPTED in
its entirety as an order of this Court;
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant BLM’s Amended Motion for Partial Dismissal of
the Complaint (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ Second Claim for Relief and this
claim is hereby DISMISSED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request, the Third Claim for Relief
and claim for civil penalties against Defendant BLM are hereby DISMISSED.
DATED this 5th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2