Medina et al v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 33 January 30, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. # 22 ) is GRANTED. Counts Two, Three, and Four are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Counts One and Five still remain. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 02/18/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01188-CMA-KMT
ANN MARIE JULIE MEDINA, and
SAMUEL MEDINA, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JANUARY 30, 2015
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the January 30, 2015 Recommendation
by United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya that Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. # 22) be granted. (Doc. # 33.) 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the
Recommendation. (Doc. # 33 at 15-16.) Despite this advisement, no objections to
Magistrate Judge Tafoya’s Recommendation were filed by either party.
“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate
[judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d
1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating

that “[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.”).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court
concludes that Magistrate Judge Tafoya’s thorough and comprehensive analyses and
recommendations are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Tafoya as the findings and conclusions of
this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (Doc. # 33) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an
order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) (Doc. # 22) is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Counts Two, Three, and Four are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Counts One and Five still remain.
DATED: February 18, 2015
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
2