From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

David A. Bovino P.C. v. MacMillan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Feb 20, 2014
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00551-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Feb. 20, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00551-PAB-MEH

02-20-2014

DAVID A. BOVINO P.C., d/b/a Law Offices of Bovino & Associates, a Colorado corporation, and DAVID A. BOVINO, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. PATRICIA A. MACMILLAN, an individual, and CHRISTINA MACMILLAN, an individual, Defendants.


Judge Philip A. Brimmer


ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on January 30, 2014 [Docket No. 129]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on January 30, 2014. No party has objected to the Recommendation.

In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See 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, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is

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).

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 129] is ACCEPTED.

2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 113] (public entry Docket No. 116) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

__________

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

David A. Bovino P.C. v. MacMillan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Feb 20, 2014
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00551-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Feb. 20, 2014)
Case details for

David A. Bovino P.C. v. MacMillan

Case Details

Full title:DAVID A. BOVINO P.C., d/b/a Law Offices of Bovino & Associates, a Colorado…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Feb 20, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00551-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Feb. 20, 2014)