Lucier v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING 32 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING 21 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. By Judge William J. Martinez on 11/5/2014.(alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 14-cv-0847-WJM-MJW
HEATHER LUCIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING OCTOBER 2, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the October 2, 2014 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 32) that
Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 21) be denied. 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.
32 at 7.) 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:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 32) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.
Dated this 5th day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2