Burns v. Freddie Mac

Full title: SUSAN BURNS, Plaintiff, v. FREDDIE MAC, BANK OF AMERICA, and DOES 1…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jul 1, 2015

Civil Action No. 13-cv-2109-WJM-KLM (D. Colo. Jul. 1, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 13-cv-2109-WJM-KLM

07-01-2015

SUSAN BURNS, Plaintiff, v. FREDDIE MAC, BANK OF AMERICA, and DOES 1 THROUGH 30, INCLUSIVE, Defendants.

Judge William J. Martínez

ORDER ADOPTING JUNE 8, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, GRANTING FREDDIE MAC'S MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on the June 8, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 42) that Defendant Freddie Mac's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36) be granted. 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. 42 at 19.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been received.

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. 42) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Defendant Freddie Mac's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED; and (3) Plaintiffs Claims asserted against Defendant Freddie Mac are hereby DISMISSED. Plaintiff's First (Breach of Contract), Second (usury), Third (fraud and deceit), and Fourth (intentional misrepresentation) claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's first cause of action based on alleged breach of the Deed of Trust is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's fifth claim (slander) as to Defendant Freddie Mac is also DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall pay her or its own attorney's fees and costs.

Dated this 1^st day of July, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge