XO Develpoment, LLC v. Raines et al

Filing 64

ORDER adopting 61 Report and Recommendations. Denying as moot 23 Motion to Vacate ; 27 Motion for Leave to Restrict ; 29 Motion to Dismiss; 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and 39 Motion to Transfer Case. That the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 3/23/2015.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-02419-RM-KMT
XO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Colorado Corporation, and
ATHEROCOR, Inc., a Colorado Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DR. JEFFREY RAINES, and
MATT KAHN,
Defendants.
ORDER
On February 26, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya issued an
Amended Recommendation (“Recommendation”) that this case “be dismissed in its entirety,
with prejudice” and “that all pending motions be denied as moot.” (ECF No. 61.) The
Recommendation was based on Plaintiffs’ failure to obtain counsel,1 failure to respond to the
Magistrate Judge’s Order to Show Cause, and failure to prosecute this case. The
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Magistrate Judge
informed the parties that any party may serve and file written objections to the Recommendation
within fourteen days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. Defendants timely filed a
“Notice of No Objection to Amended Recommendation” (ECF No. 63). Despite the Magistrate
1

Plaintiffs are corporations; therefore, they may not appear in this court acting pro se. See D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5.

Judge’s advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by Plaintiffs
and the time to do has expired. (See generally Dkt.)2
The Court has considered the Recommendation, and all other relevant matters, and
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.”). The Recommendation is,
therefore, adopted as an order of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED
1) That the Amended Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 61) is
ADOPTED in its entirety and made an Order of this Court;
2) That Plaintiffs’ entire action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
3) That all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and
4) That the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
DATED this 23rd day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2

The Court notes that Defendants also served a copy of the Recommendation upon Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 62.)

2