Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00361-WYD-KLM
05-28-2013
THE FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. LITIGATION TRUST, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.; NYNEX CORPORATION; VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC., and VERIZON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., Defendants.
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court in connection with Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Requested by Subpoena ("Motion to Compel") filed February 8, 2013. This motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Mix for a recommendation. An Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge was issued on March 25, 2013, and is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Magistrate Judge Mix notes in her Order and Recommendation that Defendants filed a Notice of Withdrawal of their Motion to Compel on March 17, 2013, asserting that the issues in the motion have been resolved. Order and Recommendation at 1. She found that since this action was opened upon the filing of the Motion to Compel, withdrawal of the motion necessarily results in the termination of the case. Id. Accordingly, she recommends that the Motion to Compel be withdrawn and that the case be dismissed. Id. Magistrate Mix advised the parties that written objections were due within fourteen days after service of the Recommendation. Id. at 1-2. No objections were filed to the Magistrate Judge's Order and Recommendation.
No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Note, 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).
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error. I agree with Magistrate Judge Mix that since the motion underlying the filing of the case has been resolved, the Motion to Compel should be withdrawn and the case terminated. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge dated March 25, 2013 (ECF No. 6) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Requested by Subpoena (ECF No. 2 filed February 8, 2013) is WITHDRAWN, and this action is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief United States District Judge