Matson et al v. Dillon Companies, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 20 March 8, 2016 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 18 ) is GRANTED. Audrey Matson's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 04/06/2016. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00103-CMA-NYW
MERWYN MATSON, and
AUDREY MATSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DILLON COMPANIES, INC., a Kansas corporation doing business as King Soopers,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MARCH 8, 2016
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation by United States
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
(Doc. # 18) be granted. (Doc. # 20.) 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 14 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc.
# 20 at 4.) No objections to Magistrate Judge Wang’s Recommendation were filed by
either party. “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a
magistrate . . . [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v.
Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985) (“It 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.")).
After reviewing Magistrate Judge Wang’s Recommendation, this Court is
satisfied that it is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (Doc. # 20), filed on March 8, 2016, is AFFIRMED and
ADOPTED.
In accordance therewith, it is FURTHER ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 18) is GRANTED;
(2) Plaintiff Audrey Matson’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
from this case; and
(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to docket the First Amended Complaint (Doc. #
18-1).
DATED: April 6, 2016
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2