Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-01366-RM-NRN
03-18-2022
BRENDA GEIGER, CLAUDIA SAMPEDRO, DESSIEMITCHESON, and URSULA MAYES, Plaintiffs, v. 52 EIGHTY SPORTS BAR, LLC d/b/a 52Eighty Sports Bar and Night Club, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (ECF No. 36) to deny the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant 52 Eighty Sports Bar, LLC ("52Eighty") (ECF No. 29). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. (See ECF No. 36 at 5.) The deadline for responding to the Recommendation has come and gone without a response from either party. "In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
As outlined in the Recommendation, Plaintiffs brought this action due to 52Eighty's unauthorized use of their images in marketing their business. 52Eighty moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that records of the Colorado Secretary of State show that it was formed after the alleged misconduct. The Motion was referred to the magistrate judge for a recommendation. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiffs filed a Response to the Motion (ECF No. 34), and the magistrate judge held a hearing on it on December 15, 2021 (ECF No. 35). The magistrate judge then issued the Recommendation, concluding that the Motion should be denied because 52Eighty may have inherited liability from its predecessor and because, in any event, Plaintiffs allege the misconduct is ongoing.
The Court discerns no clear error on the face of the record and finds that the magistrate judge's analysis is sound with respect to why the Motion should be denied at this stage of the case. See Gallegos v. Smith, 401 F.Supp.3d 1352, 1356-57 (D.N.M. 2019) (applying deferential review of the magistrate judge's work in the absence of any objection).
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 36) and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 29).