Summary
finding that plaintiff's allegations regarding her medical condition do not cause dismissal for failure to prosecute to be less appropriate
Summary of this case from Kiefer v. Allstate Ins. Co.Opinion
Civil Action No. 13cv00556-PAB-MJW
02-04-2014
IVETTE T. ECHENIQUE, Plaintiff, v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF DENVER, Defendant.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe filed on January 16, 2014 [Docket No. 61]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation 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 January 17, 2014. 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 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." 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
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).
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 61] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute [Docket No. 51] is GRANTED.
3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement [Docket No. 41] is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. This case and the claims contained therein are dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
BY THE COURT:
__________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge