Opinion
Civil Case No. 10-cv-01350-PAB.
October 12, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Recommendation") [Docket No. 16] filed on August 25, 2010. Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya recommends that the Court deny plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment [Docket No. 13]. Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Recommendation. Defendants, however, filed a response to plaintiff's motion [Docket No. 23] on September 7, 2010. Plaintiff filed an untimely reply to defendant's response on October 1, 2010 [Docket No. 24] in which he did not address the basis for the magistrate judge recommending the denial of his motion.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. 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, I have reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes.
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).
Based on this review, I have concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. As the Recommendation correctly notes, defendant has filed a motion to dismiss [Docket No. 8], and the Clerk of the Court denied [Docket No. 11] plaintiff's request for entry of default [Docket No. 7]. Cf. Williams v. Smithson, No. 95-7019, 1995 WL 365988 at *1 (10th Cir. June 20, 1995) (unpublished table opinion) (citing Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 276 (2d Cir. 1981)); Nasious v. Nu-Way Real Estate, No. 07-cv-01177-REB-MEH, 2008 WL 659667, at *1 (D.Colo. Mar. 6, 2008). The Court's review reveals nothing on the face of the record that would warrant entry of default judgment against defendant. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 16] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment [Docket No. 13] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's late-filed reply brief [Docket No. 25] is denied as moot.
DATED October 12, 2010.