Hamilton v. Farmers Insurance Group et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 41 Motion to Dismiss; granting 50 Report and Recommendations. by Judge William J. Martinez on 08/21/2015.(cthom, )

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 JULY 30, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND DENYING DEFENDANT BATHOLOMEW O. BAAH’S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH ORDER OF THE COURT

This matter is before the Court on the July 30, 2015 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 50) that
Defendant Bartholomew O. Baah’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute and
Failure to Comply with Order of the Court (ECF No. 41) 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.1 (ECF
No. 50 at 7.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

1

The Court’s internal records confirm that the Recommendation was electronically
mailed to counsel for Defendant Baah, the party against whom the Recommendation runs.

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 f ace 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. 50) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and

2.

Defendant Bartholomew O. Baah’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute
and Failure to Comply with Order of the Court (ECF No. 41) is DENIED.

Dated this 21st day of August, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2