Hamilton v. Farmers Insurance Group et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING 28 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING IN PART 16 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Defendant Farmers Insurance Group and DENIES as to Defendant Baah. Defendant Farmers Insurance Group is hereby DISMISSED. This action shall proceed only as to Defendant Baah. By Judge William J. Martinez on 11/21/2014.(alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 14-cv-1211-WJM-MJW
PRISCILLA P. HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
FARMER INSURANCE GROUP, and
BARTHOLOMEW O. BAAH,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING OCTOBER 29, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the October 29, 2014 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No.
28) that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) be granted in part and denied in
part. 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.
28, at 4.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been received.1

1

The Court notes that, after the Recommendation was issued, Plaintiff filed a “Motion
to Amend & Correct Names & Sue Bristol West Insurance Company and Bristol West
Insurance Group to Rule 15 of Docket No. 16 of Report & Recommendation.” (ECF No. 29.)
As this document does not reference any aspect of the Recommendation or otherwise
challenge the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, the Court does not consider it relevant to the
Recommendation and, despite Plaintiff’s pro se status, does not construe it as an objection.

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. 28) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED as to Defendant
Farmers Insurance Group and DENIED as to Defendant Baah; and

(3)

Defendant Farmers Insurance Group is hereby DISMISSED. This action shall
proceed only as to Defendant Baah.
Dated this 21st day of November 2014.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2