Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 14-cv-03420-PAB-NYW
ESMERALDO VILLANUEVA ECHON, JR.,
MARIBEL ECHON, and
JUSTIN ECHON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM SACKETT and
LEONIDA SACKETT,
Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina W. Wang filed on October 30, 2017 [Docket No. 134]. T he Recommendation states that objections to the Recom mendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on October 30, 2017. 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) (“[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 *2 neither party objects to those findings”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation 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. 134] is accepted.
2. Defendant William Sackett’s Motion to Dismiss Witnesses [Docket No. 132], construed as a motion to exclude certain witnesses and construed in the alternative as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, is denied.
DATED January 11, 2018.
BY THE COURT: s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge
[1] 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). 2