Moradi et al v. Estate of Everett Leroy Pfeiff et al
ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 101 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Plaintiffs Motion Unopposed Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint ECF No. 97 is GRANTED; and Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand ECF No. [97-2] is ACCEPTED as filed and is now the operative complaint in this action, by Judge William J. Martinez on 7/30/2014.(evana, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 13-cv-1447-WJM-KLM
ISAAC MORADI, individually and as trustee for the Moradi Family Trust,
FOROUGH MORADI, as trustee for the Saeed and Forough Moradi Family Trust,
I&J PARTNERSHIP, LP, and
610 SOUTH MAIN, LLC,
ESTATE OF EVERETT LEROY PFEIFF, and
LINDA PFEIFF, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Everett Leroy
OLDE WORLD DEVELOPMENT, LLC.,
ORDER ADOPTING JULY 7, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND
This matter is before the Court on the July 7, 2014 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 101) that
Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 97) be
granted. 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. (ECF
No. 101 at 2.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been received.
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:
The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 101) is ADOPTED in its
Plaintiff’s Motion Unopposed Motion to Amend First Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 97) is GRANTED; and
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (ECF No. 97-2) is
ACCEPTED as filed and is now the operative complaint in this action.
Dated this 30th day of July, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?