United States District Court, District of Colorado
April 14, 2015
EUGENE CHRISTENSON, and SHARON CHRISTENSON, Plaintiffs,
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING FEBRUARY 20, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF
Christine M. Arguello, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the Court on the February 20, 2015 Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count VI in Plaintiff’s Third Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. # 54) be denied. (Doc. # 65.) 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 65 at 26-27.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Mix’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) (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.”).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Mix’s thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mix as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mix (Doc. # 65) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count VI in Plaintiff’s Third Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. # 54) is DENIED.