Carson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 50

ORDER the 49 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court; and, Defendants' 25 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Sixth Claim for Relief based on Negligent Misrepresentation is dismissed with prejudice. ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 8/23/2017. (cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02841-RM-KLM
CARLEE C. CARSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, and
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., as Trustee on behalf of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan
Trust and for the Registered Holders of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust,
Series 20070HE2, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the August 7, 2017, Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 49) to grant Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) and dismiss Plaintiff Carlee C. Carson’s sixth claim for relief for
negligent misrepresentation with prejudice. 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. 49 at pages 9-10.)
Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by any party
and the time to do so has expired. (See generally Dkt.)
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and finds that Magistrate Judge Mix’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 ORDERS:
(1) That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 49) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court; and
(2) That Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Sixth
Claim for Relief based on Negligent Misrepresentation is dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 23rd day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2