Workalemahu v. Heritage Club

Filing 35

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Compel Arbitration, to wit, the Court GRANTS the request to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's underlying claims and the Court DENIES the request to stay the matter. ORDERS the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to Loc al Rule 41.2, to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the matter subject to reopening for good cause; and ORDERS the parties to file a joint-status report within ten days after the issuance of an arbitration decision. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 34 in its entirety. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 1/21/2015.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02396-RM-MEH
MEDESET WORKALEMAHU,
Plaintiff,
v.
HERITAGE CLUB,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael E.
Hegarty (“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 34) to grant Defendant Brookdale Senior Living
Communities, Inc.’s1 (“Brookdale”) motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 34). Also,
Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommended the Court stay or close administratively the matter.
(ECF No. 34 at 4.) 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. 34 at 1 n.1.)
Despite this advisement, neither party has to date filed an objection to the Recommendation.
(See generally Dkt.)

1

Defendant Brookdale contends, in its motion to compel arbitration, that Plaintiff incorrectly identified it as
Heritage Club. (ECF No. 14 at 1.) Plaintiff does not dispute this assertion. (See generally Dkt.) The Summons
returned as executed indicates that Joshua Smith, Executive Director, was served at 8101 East Mississippi Avenue,
Denver, CO 80210. (ECF No. 13.) Defendant does not contend that service of process was fatally defective.

The Court concludes that Judge Hegarty’s analysis was thorough and sound, and that
there is no clear error on the record’s face. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee's Note
(holding that “[w]hen 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.”). The
Court, therefore, adopts the Recommendation.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court:
(1)

ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 34) in its entirety;

(2)

GRANTS, in part, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 14), to

wit, the Court GRANTS the request to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s underlying claims and the
Court DENIES the request to stay the matter;
(3)

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 41.2, to

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the matter subject to reopening for good cause; and
(4)

ORDERS the parties to file a joint-status report within ten days after the issuance

of an arbitration decision.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2