Ballage v. Hope & Home
Filing
32
ORDER Accepting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 09/16/2022, re: #28 The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED. Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. #20 ] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. (sapod, )
Case 1:21-cv-01320-PAB-MDB Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 21-cv-01320-PAB-MDB
OLIVIA BALLAGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOPE & HOME,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed on August 29, 2022 [Docket No. 28]. The Recommendation
states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its
service on the parties. Docket No. 28 at 22–23; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on August 29, 2022. 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) (“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.”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation
Case 1:21-cv-01320-PAB-MDB Document 32 Filed 09/16/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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. 28] is
ACCEPTED;
2. Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 20] is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part; and
3. Plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
DATED September 16, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
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).
1
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?