From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Friess v. Thompson

United States District Court, District of Colorado
Nov 17, 2022
Civil Action 1:22-cv-00448-CNS-KLM (D. Colo. Nov. 17, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 1:22-cv-00448-CNS-KLM

11-17-2022

KATHERINE FRIESS, Plaintiff, v. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, in his official capacity as Chairman of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol; and SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL, a committee of the United States House of Representatives, Defendants.


ORDER

Charlotte N. Sweeney, United States District Judge

Before the Court is the Recommendation by Magistrate Mix issued on October 26, 2022, recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted. (ECF Nos. 24, 44). For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.

The parties were advised that they had fourteen days, after being served with a copy of the Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge assigned to the case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Mix's Recommendation.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court may designate a magistrate judge to consider dispositive motions and submit recommendations to the Court. When a magistrate judge submits a recommendation, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A party's failure to file such written objections may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). When this occurs, the Court is “accorded considerable discretion” and “may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).

After reviewing all the relevant pleadings, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Mix's analysis was thorough and comprehensive, the Recommendation is well-reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Mix's Recommendation as an Order of this Court (ECF No. 44). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED (ECF No. 24).


Summaries of

Friess v. Thompson

United States District Court, District of Colorado
Nov 17, 2022
Civil Action 1:22-cv-00448-CNS-KLM (D. Colo. Nov. 17, 2022)
Case details for

Friess v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:KATHERINE FRIESS, Plaintiff, v. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, in his official…

Court:United States District Court, District of Colorado

Date published: Nov 17, 2022

Citations

Civil Action 1:22-cv-00448-CNS-KLM (D. Colo. Nov. 17, 2022)