Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Colorado Casualty Insurance Co. v. Infinity Land Corporation

United States District Court, D. Colorado

April 25, 2014

COLORADO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
INFINITY LAND CORPORATION, a dissolved Colorado corporation, H2 LAND CO, LLC, a dissolved Colorado limited liability company, HOWARD FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a dissolved Colorado liability company, JONATHAN HOWARD, PAUL HOWARD, KF 103 CV, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, WILLIAM MARCHANT, MAUREEN M. MARCHANT, WILLIAM E. HOWELL, as Successor Trustee of the MARILYN J. HOWELL TRUST, C. ARLENE NANCE, WILLIAM PECK, DARRELL H. OLIVER, KELLY ANN OLIVER, and SUSAN HANSON, Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

WILEY Y. DANIEL, Senior District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Boland recommends that the Unopposed Motion to Reopen be granted for good cause shown. (Recommendation at 1-2). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 36(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

Magistrate Judge Boland advised the parties that written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 2). Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation Aunder any standard [I] deem[] appropriate.@ Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record."[1] See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.

Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Boland's Recommendation is thorough, well reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Boland that this matter should be reopened for good cause shown.

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boland (ECF No. 92) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is

ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 90) is GRANTED, and this action is reopened for further proceedings.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.