Friess v. Thompson et al

Filing 45

ORDER affirming and adopting #44 Report and Recommendations; granting #24 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. by Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 11/17/22.(jdyne)

Case 1:22-cv-00448-CNS-KLM Document 45 Filed 11/17/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00448-CNS-KLM
KATHERINE FRIESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, in his official capacity as Chairman of the House Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol; and
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE UNITED
STATES CAPITOL, a committee of the United States House of Representatives,
Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommendation by Magistrate Mix issued on October 26, 2022,
recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted. (ECF Nos. 24, 44). For the
following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.
The parties were advised that they had fourteen days, after being served with a copy of the
Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge
assigned to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate
Judge Mix’s Recommendation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court may designate a magistrate judge to consider
dispositive motions and submit recommendations to the Court. When a magistrate judge submits
a recommendation, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
1

Case 1:22-cv-00448-CNS-KLM Document 45 Filed 11/17/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

[recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s
failure to file such written objections may bar the party from a de novo determination by the
District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985). When this occurs, the Court is “accorded considerable discretion” and “may review a
magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d
1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).
After reviewing all the relevant pleadings, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Mix’s
analysis was thorough and comprehensive, the Recommendation is well-reasoned, and the Court
finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Mix’s Recommendation as an Order of this Court (ECF No. 44). Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED (ECF No. 24).
DATED this 17th day of November 2022.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge

2