Mitchell v. Manzer

Full title: CYNTHIA MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MANZER, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: May 3, 2013

Civil Action No. 12-cv-0780-WJM-MJW (D. Colo. May. 3, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-0780-WJM-MJW

05-03-2013

CYNTHIA MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MANZER, Defendant.

William J. Martínez

Judge William J. Martínez

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING MARCH 4, 2013

RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the March 4, 2013 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 34) that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Michael Manzer, or In the Alternative, Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Expert Witness Disclosures (ECF No. 31) be granted to the extent that a default judgment be entered against the defendant, Michael Manzer. 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 34, at 9.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been filed by either party.

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge'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.")

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is ADOPTED to the extent that "taking the facts pled in the Complaint as true, they support a judgment on the claims against Defendant." (Id. at 8.) (2) This matter is set for a HEARING on May 17, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. At this hearing the Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to prove up the amount of damages to be awarded to her in the Default Judgment. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to Part V of this Court's Revised Practice Standards (effective December 1, 2012) to ensure compliance with all requirements pertaining to conducting an evidentiary hearing before the undersigned.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge