Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-2206-RM-SP
05-24-2023
CENTURYLINK OF FLORIDA, INC., doing business as CenturyLink, CENTURYLINK OF MINNESOTA, INC., doing business as Century Link, UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY OF THE NORTHWEST, doing business as CenturyLink and QWEST CORPORATION, doing business as CenturyLink, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, v. AT&T CORP., NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVmCES, INC., AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, SBC LONG DISTANCE, LLC, and TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Susan Prose, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the court on the Motion to Transfer filed by AT&T (ECF No. 34) (“Motion”). The undersigned Magistrate Judge considers the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and the Memorandum dated October 20, 2022. ECF No. 38.
In light of the parties' Notice of Settlement (ECF No. 82), this court respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Motion be denied without prejudice to refiling if a stipulation of dismissal is not filed in this case.
Within fourteen days after service of a copy of the Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 583 (10th Cir. 1995). A general objection that does not put the district court on notice of the basis for the objection will not preserve the objection for de novo review. “[A] party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop. Known As 2121 East 30th Street, Tulsa, Okla., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Failure to make timely objections may bar de novo review by the district judge of the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations and will result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the district court based on the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. See Vega v. Suthers, 195 F.3d 573, 579-80 (10th Cir. 1999) (a district court's decision to review a magistrate judge's recommendation de novo despite the lack of an objection does not preclude application of the “firm waiver rule”); One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1059-60 (a party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review); Int'l Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Wyo. Coal Ref. Sys., Inc., 52 F.3d 901, 904 (10th Cir. 1995) (by failing to object to certain portions of the magistrate judge's order, cross-claimant had waived its right to appeal those portions of the ruling); Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1352 (10th Cir. 1992) (by their failure to file objections, plaintiffs waived their right to appeal the magistrate judge's ruling); but see, Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005) (firm waiver rule does not apply when the interests of justice require review).