MacAlmon Music, LLC v. Maurice Sklar Ministries, Inc. et al

Filing 72

ORDER. Ordered that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 68 is ACCEPTED. Ordered that Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees 56 is GRANTED. Ordered that Plaintiff shall recover from defendants, jointly and severally, its attorney's fees in the amount of $28,801.38. Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 08/28/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02471-PAB-CBS
MACALMON MUSIC, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAURICE SKLAR MINISTRIES, INC.,
MAURICE SKLAR, and
DEVORAH J. SKLAR,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer filed on August 4, 2015 [Docket No. 68]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recom mendation 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 August 4, 2015. No party has objected to the
Recommendation.
The copies of the Recommendation that were mailed to defendants at their last
known addresses were returned as undeliverable [Docket Nos. 69-71]. Although they
are required to do so, see D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5(c), defendants have failed to inform the
court of their current mailing addresses. Defendants, therefore, bear responsibility for
not receiving a copy of 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. 68] is
ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees [Docket No. 56] is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff shall recover from defendants, jointly and severally, its attorney’s fees
in the amount of $28,801.38.

DATED August 28, 2015.
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