Kemple v. US Bank National Association et al
Filing
11
ORDER Accepting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. Ordered the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 10] is ACCEPTED. Ordered that the case is administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2,subject to being reopen ed for good cause shown. Ordered that the parties shall file, either jointly or separately, a status report within 30 days of any action that serves to lift the automatic stay in plaintiffs bankruptcy case.The status report shall indicate what the ac tion was, the purported impact, and how the party or parties intend to proceed in this case. If the parties have not already filed a status report, the parties shall file a status report on or before May 23, 2016. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/23/15.(jhawk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02430-PAB-NYW
RICHARD KEMPLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a nationally chartered bank,
CITIMORTGAGE INC., a Delaware corporation, and
BARRETT FRAPPIER & WEISSERMAN, LLP, an LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang filed on December 3, 2015 [Docket No. 10]. The
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 December 3, 2015. No party has objected to the
Recommendation.
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. 10] is
ACCEPTED.
2. This case is administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2,
subject to being reopened for good cause shown.
3. The parties shall file, either jointly or separately, a status report within 30
days of any action that serves to lift the automatic stay in plaintiff’s bankruptcy case.
The status report shall indicate what the action was, the purported impact, and how the
party or parties intend to proceed in this case. If the parties have not already filed a
status report, the parties shall file a status report on or before May 23, 2016.
DATED December 23, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
1
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
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?