Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-cv-726-WYD-PAC.
July 11, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER is before the Court in connection with Plaintiff's Motion to File Amended Complaint, filed March 24, 2006 (docket #61). This motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Coan for a recommendation by memorandum dated March 27, 2006. A Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Coan was issued on June 16, 2006, and is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Magistrate Judge Coan recommends therein that Plaintiff's motion be denied. Recommendation at 13. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Coan concluded that (1) Plaintiff had not demonstrated diligence or good cause for expansion of her retaliation claim to include "all persons who have been subjected to adverse actions by Defendants because they opposed practices prohibited by Title VII from April 2001 to present;" (2) while Plaintiff demonstrated a factual basis to justify expansion of her failure to promote claim to a nationwide claim, such amendment would be unduly prejudicial to Defendant; (3) Plaintiff had not demonstrated good cause for expansion of her failure to promote claim to include Defendant Car Toy's alleged failure to hire women directly into management positions; and (4) it would be futile to allow amendment of the complaint so that Plaintiff would be the reputed representative of the women who applied, but were not directly hired into, management positions at Car Toys.
Magistrate Judge Coan advised the parties that specific written objections were due within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Id. at 13. Despite this advisement, no objections were filed by any party to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Note, 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).
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I agree with Magistrate Judge Coan's reasoning and recommendations. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Coan dated June 16, 2006, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to File Amended Complaint, filed March 24, 2006 (docket #61) is DENIED.