Bey v. Musclepharm Corporation

Filing 58

ORDER Affirming 56 April 9, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 25 ) is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff's first claim for relief under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and DENIED in all other respects. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 05/15/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02881-CMA-MJW
RAMONA JASPER, a/k/a Nika Raet Bey,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
MUSCLEPHARM CORPORATION,
Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING APRIL 9, 2015 RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the April 9, 2015 Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe that Plaintiff’s first claim for relief under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), but that the
motion be denied in all other respects. (Doc. # 56.) 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation.
(Doc. # 56.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Watanabe’s
Recommendation were filed by either party.
“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate
[judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d

1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating
that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a
magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”)).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court
concludes that Magistrate Judge Watanabe’s thorough and comprehensive analyses
and recommendations are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face of the
record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS
the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Watanabe as the findings and conclusions of
this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 56) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 25) is
GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff’s first claim for relief under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and DENIED in all other respects.
DATED: May

15

, 2015

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2