Eddins et al v. Time Warner NY Cable, LLC

Filing 101

ORDER adopting 94 Report and Recommendations. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 6/26/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02521-RM-MJW
JERRY W. EDDINS,
DENA M CANNON,
STEPHANIE S. A. EDDINS,
JUIANA VAN TUIL, and
SUZANNE BOLDEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TIME WARNER NY CABLE LLC,
Defendant.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS NAMED PLAINTIFFS
(ECF NO. 94)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation on
Amended Motion to Dismiss Named Plaintiffs (ECF No. 94) dated May 23, 2014. The Magistrate Judge
recommended Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Dismiss Named Plaintiffs (ECF No. 73) be granted and named
plaintiffs Jerry W. Eddins and Stephanie S. A. Eddins be dismissed without prejudice. The Recommendation is
incorporated herein by this reference. The Recommendation advised the parties they had fourteen days after
service of the Recommendation to file any objections. The time permitted for any objections has expired and
no objections to the Recommendation have been filed.
The Court has reviewed the Amended Motion to Dismiss, Defendant’s Response, the Recommendation,
and other relevant portions of the file, and concludes 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 Notes
(“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.”). Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

That the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 94) is ADOPTED in its entirety as an
order of this Court;

2.

That the Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Dismiss Named Plaintiffs (ECF No. 73) is GRANTED
to the extent stated in the Recommendation and Plaintiffs Jerry W. Eddins and Stephanie S. A.
Eddins are dismissed without prejudice; and

3.

That the names of Jerry W. Eddins and Stephanie S. A. Eddins be removed from the caption in
this case in future filings with the Court.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2