Opinion
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03420-PAB-NYW
11-01-2017
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 Y. Wang filed on September 20, 2017 [Docket No. 116]. 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 September 20, 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 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. 116] is accepted.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 106] is granted in part and denied in part.
3. Plaintiffs' request that certain proposed facts be accepted as true is granted in part and denied in part.
4. The motion is granted as to Claims Five and Six, pled in the alternative, with respect to liability.
5. The motion is denied as to Claims One, Three, Four, and Seven.
6. Claim Two (arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act) is dismissed without prejudice.
DATED November 1, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge