Adenowo v. Denver Public Schools

Filing 61

ORDER Adopting 51 Report and Recommendations. Denying 23 Motion to Dismiss. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 07/24/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02723-RM-MEH
OLUSEGUN ADENOWO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS, a/k/a School District No. 1 in the County of Denver and State of
Colorado,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the June 17, 2015 Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 51) to deny Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 23). Essentially, after a hearing, the Magistrate
Judge recommended denial of the Motion because some of Defendant’s challenges to Plaintiff’s
allegations were insufficient to warrant dismissal and other challenges should properly be decided
on summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge converted the Motion to one for summary
judgment and allowed supplemental briefing. (ECF Nos. 50, 51, 52.) 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. 51 at page 1.)
Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by either
party and the time to do so has expired. (See generally Dkt.)

The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Hegarty’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.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court:
(1)

ADOPTS the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 51) in

its entirety as an order of this Court; and
(2)

DENIES the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) as the parties will be briefing these

issues on summary judgment.
DATED this 24th day of July, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2