From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jennings v. Lee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Dec 8, 2015
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01248-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Dec. 8, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 15-cv-01248-PAB-KMT

12-08-2015

JAMES E. JENNINGS, Plaintiff, v. MICHELE K. LEE, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, and DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Defendants.


ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on November 17, 2015 [Docket No. 12]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 12 at 5. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Objections to the Recommendation were due on December 4, 2015. No party has objected to the Recommendation.

In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("[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"). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is

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). --------

ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 12] is ACCEPTED. It is further

ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because plaintiff has failed to file a pleading that complies with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate [Docket No. 13] and plaintiff's Motion to Compile [Docket No. 16], neither of which addresses the Recommendation, are denied as moot.

DATED December 8, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Jennings v. Lee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Dec 8, 2015
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01248-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Dec. 8, 2015)
Case details for

Jennings v. Lee

Case Details

Full title:JAMES E. JENNINGS, Plaintiff, v. MICHELE K. LEE, Deputy Under Secretary of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Dec 8, 2015

Citations

Civil Action No. 15-cv-01248-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Dec. 8, 2015)