Cortez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Full title: THOMAS CORTEZ, a Colorado resident, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Feb 22, 2012

Civil Action No. 11-cv1449-RBJ-KLM (D. Colo. Feb. 22, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv1449-RBJ-KLM

02-22-2012

THOMAS CORTEZ, a Colorado resident, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

R. Brooke Jackson

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JANUARY 30, 2012 RECOMMENDATIONS

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the January 30, 2012 Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix [docket #33] that plaintiff Thomas Cortez's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#10] be denied, and that defendant's motion for fees and costs incurred in response to said motion be denied without prejudice. 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Doc. #33 at 5-6. Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Mix's Recommendation were filed by either party. "In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing 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")).

The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analyses and recommendations are correct and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of The United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [#33] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#10] is denied. Defendant's request for fees and costs associated with plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied without prejudice.

BY THE COURT:

____________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge