DeMaestri v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp.

Full title: BRIAN DEMAESTRI, Plaintiff, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE CAPITAL CORP., Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Apr 12, 2012

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01671-WJM-MJW (D. Colo. Apr. 12, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01671-WJM-MJW 11-cv-1672-WJM-MJW

04-12-2012

BRIAN DEMAESTRI, Plaintiff, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE CAPITAL CORP., Defendant.

William J. Martínez

Judge William J. Martínez

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION,

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on the March 14, 2012 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 47) that Defendant Asset Acceptance Capital Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30) be granted and that Plaintiff Brian DeMaestri's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) be denied. 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. 47 at 9-10.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have been filed by either party. "In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate'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")).

Having reviewed the Recommendation, 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.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:

1. Magistrate Judge Watanabe's March 14, 2012 Recommendation is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 37) is DENIED;
3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED;
4. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in both Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-1671-WJM-MJW and Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-1672-WJM-MJW. Defendant shall have its costs.

BY THE COURT:

_______________

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge