Opinion
Civil Action 23-cv-00742-RM-KAS
09-29-2023
JACQUELINE LONG, and JOHN PRIZANT, a sole proprietorship d/b/a Generational Solutions, Plaintiffs, v. JEANNE ANDLINGER, Defendant.
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella (ECF No. 45) to grant Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 36) and dismiss Plaintiff Long's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). The Recommendation advised that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. More than fourteen days have elapsed since the Recommendation was issued, and no objection has been filed. For the reasons below, the Court accepts the Recommendation, which is incorporated into this Order by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
“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, the allegations in the Complaint describe an abrupt end to a close, forty-year friendship, but they do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to state an IIED claim.
The Court discerns no error on the face of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge's analysis of the issues presented in Motion. 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); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 addition (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 45), and Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED.