Echon et al v. Sackett et al
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 01/11/2018. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 134 is accepted. Defendant William Sackett's Motion to Dismiss Witnesses 132 , construed as a motion to exclude certain witnesses and construed in the alternative as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, is denied. (sphil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03420-PAB-NYW
ESMERALDO VILLANUEVA ECHON, JR.,
MARIBEL ECHON, and
WILLIAM SACKETT and
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Nina W. Wang filed on October 30, 2017 [Docket No. 134]. T he
Recommendation states that objections to the Recom mendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on October 30, 2017. No party has objected to the
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)
(“[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”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the
Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has
concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 134] is
2. Defendant William Sackett’s Motion to Dismiss Witnesses [Docket No. 132],
construed as a motion to exclude certain witnesses and construed in the alternative as
a motion for judgment on the pleadings, is denied.
DATED January 11, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?