Summary
In Sparks, this Court determined that it could not conclude that the civil theft counterclaim was baseless and that, therefore, the assertion of the counterclaim did not provide a sufficient basis for the retaliation claim.
Summary of this case from Morales v. Roxbox Containers, LLCOpinion
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00447-PAB-KLM
12-29-2014
JASON SPARKS, DEREK PARRIS, DANIEL RAU, ALEKSEY KAZAKOV, BRYAN CORBIN, and MICHAEL O'LOUGHLIN, Plaintiffs, v. DUNCAN RACE CARS, INC., d/b/a Springs Auto & Truck Service Center, Inc. DEVIN BREESE, and TERRY BREESE, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix filed on October 21, 2014 [Docket No. 56]. 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 October 22, 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. 56] is ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint [Docket No. 21] is DENIED.
DATED December 29, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge