Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-02783-CMA-KMT
08-27-2021
RALPH A. MITCHELL, JR, Plaintiff, v. AMY M. MOTAZEDI, MASSOUD MOTAZEDI, JENNE M. PENNER, and BRIAN R. PENNER, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the August 12, 2021 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 19), wherein Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya recommends that this Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) (Doc. # 12). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 19 at 16-17.) Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Tafoya's Recommendation has been filed by any party.
“[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[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.”)).
After reviewing the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Tafoya, in addition to applicable portions of the record and relevant legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 19) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) (Doc. # 12) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Hollander v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 289 F.3d 1193, 1216 (10th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction should be without prejudice). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.