United States District Court, D. Colorado
July 24, 2015
LAURA HOPPER, Plaintiff,
RE/MAX PROPERTIES, INC., a Colorado corporation, JEFF RYDER, an individual, JODY ROMNEY, an individual, and AMY LASSEN, an individual, Defendant.
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the June 12, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 41) to grant, in part, and deny, in part, Defendants Amy Lassen, Re/Max Properties, Inc., and Jody Romney's (collectively "Re/Max Defendants") motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) and to grant Defendant Jeff Ryder's ("Ryder") motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22). Both motions to dismiss pertain to Plaintiff Laura Hopper's ("Hopper") amended complaint (ECF No. 19). The Court incorporates the Recommendation 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 41 at 18.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by either party. ( See generally Dkt.)
The Court concludes that Judge Wang's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ("In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate."). The Recommendation is, therefore, adopted.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court:
(1) ADOPTS, in its entirety, the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 41);
(2) GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part, Re/Max Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) to wit, the Court:
(i) DENIES Re/Max Defendants' motion to the extent it seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Re/Max (ECF No. 19 at 8-9); and
(ii) GRANTS Re/Max Defendants' motion to the extent it seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Romney and Lassen (ECF No. 19 at 10-11); and
(3) GRANTS Defendant Ryder's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 22).