Bataille v. Delaware North Company

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING 34 the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge in its entirety; and DENYING 13 Defendants Motion to Dismiss or Strike Allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint Related to Non-Adverse Employment Actions, by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 12/29/2015.(cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00139-RM-NYW
PETERSON I. BATAILLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELAWARE NORTH COMPANY,1
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the November 11, 2015 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 34) to deny
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Strike Allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint Related to NonAdverse Employment Actions (ECF No. 13). 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. 34 at pages 7, 8.)
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.)

1

The parties apparently do not dispute Defendant should be identified as “CA Concessions of Colorado, Inc.” (ECF
No. 13 at page 1).

The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Wang’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. 34) in its
entirety; and

(2)

DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Strike Allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint
Related to Non-Adverse Employment Actions (ECF No. 13).
DATED this 29th day of December, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2