Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-cv-03077-CNS-MDB
10-17-2022
MARY A. GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. SUMMIT TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, BRIAN SUTTON, and TAMIE SHARP, Defendants.
ORDER
Charlotte N. Sweeney Judge
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell issued on September 26, 2022, denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 50). 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 Judge Dominguez Braswell'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 Judge Dominguez Braswell'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 Judge Dominguez Braswell's Recommendation (ECF No. 50) as an order of this Court. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.