Kaka v. Holder et al

Filing 13

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 12 Report and Recommendations. Ordered that this case is administratively closed subject to reopening for good cause shown pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. Ordered that if no party files a stipulation to dismiss the case or a motion to reopen the case on or before December 1, 2014, this case will be dismissed with prejudice without further notice to the parties and without further action by the Court by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 07/08/14.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00764-PAB-BNB
MARZIA KAKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, in his official capacity, United States
Department of Justice,
JEH JOHNSON, Secretary, in his official capacity, Department of Homeland Security,
LORI SCIALABBA, Acting Director, in her official capacity, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service,
ANDREW LAMBRECHT, Acting District Director, in his official capacity, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Service, and
JAMES COMEY, Director, in his official capacity, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland filed on June 12, 2014 [Docket No. 12]. 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 June 12, 2014. 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. 12] is
ACCEPTED.
2. This case is administratively closed subject to reopening for good cause
shown pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.
3. If no party files a stipulation to dismiss the case or a motion to reopen the
case on or before December 1, 2014, this case will be dismissed with prejudice without
further notice to the parties and without further action by the Court.

DATED July 8, 2014.
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

3