Pohl et al v. U.S. Bank National Association

Filing 34

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 33 RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiffs' claims against All Persons or Entities Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the Property Described in this Complaint Adverse to Plain tiffs Title, or Any Cloud upon Plaintiffs Title Thereto, and Does 1-20 are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and/or D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 based upon plaintiffs' failure to prosecute and failure to serve these defendants. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/13/13.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01092-PAB-MJW
STANLEY M. POHL,
ZINAIDA Q. POHL, and
PRINCE SONG CAMBILARGIU,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as successor trustee to Bank of America, N.A.,
as successor to LaSalle Bank, N.A., as trustee for Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage
Loan Trust, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-4, and
ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT,
TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS
COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD UPON
PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO, and
DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
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 October 22, 2013 [Docket No. 33]. 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 October 22, 2013. 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. 33] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiffs’ claims against All Persons or Entities Claiming Any Legal or
Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the Property Described in this
Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff’s Title, or Any Cloud upon Plaintiff’s Title Thereto, and
Does 1-20 are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and/or
D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 based upon plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute and failure to serve
these defendants.

DATED November 13, 2013.
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