Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-00427-PAB-NRN
08-24-2021
REED K. MCDONALD, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK N.A., and SHANA KLOEK, in her individual and professional capacity as Clerk of Court for Arapahoe County, Colorado, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
PHILIP A. BRIMMERS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter filed on July 22, 2021 [Docket No. 86] and July 23, 2021 [Docket No. 87]. The Recommendations state that objections to the Recommendations must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 86 at 16; Docket No. 87 at 2-3; See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Recommendations were served on July 22, 2021 and July 23, 2021. On August 5, 2021, plaintiff filed a timely objection to the recommendations, but one which exceeded the page limitation by nine pages. See Docket No. 89; Practice Standards (Civil cases), Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer § III.A (“All . . . objections (including objections to the recommendations or orders of United States Magistrate Judges) . . . shall not exceed fifteen pages.”). The following day, the Court struck the objection for failure to comply with the Court's Practice Standards. See Docket No. 90 (striking objection because it exceeded page limitation); see also Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (“[P]ro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). In its order striking the objection, the Court permitted plaintiff to file a complying objection on or before August 13, 2021. Docket No. 90. The order striking the objection was mailed to plaintiff at his address in Littleton, Colorado. Plaintiff did not file a complying objection on or before August 13, 2021. In fact, as of the date of this order, over ten days after the deadline, plaintiff has not filed an objection.
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) (“It 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 Recommendations 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 Recommendations are 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 as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter [Docket No. 86] is ACCEPTED;
2. The Motion to Dismiss Defendant Shana Kloek [Docket No. 30] is GRANTED;
3. Defendant Citibank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 39] is GRANTED;
4. Plaintiffs Complaint [Docket No. 1] is DISMISSED;
5. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter [Docket No. 87] is ACCEPTED;
6. Plaintiffs outstanding motions [Docket Nos. 3, 55, 73, 75, 83] are DENIED as moot; and
7. This case is closed.