USA v. Martens

Filing 59

ORDER that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tafoya ECF No. 58 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 48 is GRANTED, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 3/28/2016.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No.

14-cv-01199-WYD-KMT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY MARTENS, individually and as trustee of In God We Trust,
IN GOD WE TRUST, a trust,
JENNIFER MARTENS,
BANK OF AMERICA,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (“Recommendation”), filed February 23, 2016. (ECF No. 58). In the
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Tafoya recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48) be granted. (Recommendation at 19). The
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. ' 36(b)(1)(B),
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, written objections are due within fourteen (14) days after
service of a copy of the Recommendation. Here, no objections were filed to the
Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review
the Recommendation Aunder any standard [I] deem[] appropriate.@ Summers v. Utah,

927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I
review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of
the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on
the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Tafoya=s Recommendation is
thorough, well-reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Tafoya that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted for the reasons noted in both the
Recommendation and this Order.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tafoya
(ECF No. 58) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48) is
GRANTED.

1

Note, 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-

Dated: March 28, 2016
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge

-3-