Atkins v. HCA-Healthone, LLC

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING 9 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The 4 Motion for Administrative Closure or, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay Proceedings is GRANTED, and this case is administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. By Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 3/19/2015.(alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00037-WYD-KLM
BETHANY ATKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
HCA-HEALTHONE, LLC d/b/a ROSE MEDICAL CENTER, a Colorado Limited Liability
Company,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (“Recommendation”), filed February 20, 2015. (ECF No. 9). In the
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Mix recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Administrative Closure or, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 4) be
granted and that that this case be administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR
41.2. (Recommendation at 2). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by
reference. See 28 U.S.C. ' 36(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, written objections are due within fourteen (14) days after
service of a copy of the Recommendation. Here, no objections were filed to the
Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review
the Recommendation Aunder any standard [I] deem[] appropriate.@ Summers v. Utah,
927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I
review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of
the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on
the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Mix=s Recommendation is thorough,
well-reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Mix that this matter should be
administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mix (ECF
No. 9) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that the Motion for Administrative Closure or, in the Alternative, Motion
to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED, and this case is administratively closed
pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2. Plaintiff shall file a motion to reopen this case for
good cause within 30 days of receipt of a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC.

1

Note, 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).

-2-

Dated: March 19, 2015
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge

-3-