Ohimai v. Developmental Disabilities Res. Ctr.

Full title: MARIAM OHIMAI, Plaintiff, v. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES RESOURCE CENTER…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jun 5, 2019

Civil Action No. 18-cv-02189-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Jun. 5, 2019)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 18-cv-02189-PAB-KLM

06-05-2019

MARIAM OHIMAI, Plaintiff, v. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES RESOURCE CENTER a/k/a DDRC, Defendant.

Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix filed on May 13, 2019 [Docket No. 52]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on May 13, 2019. 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."¹ 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

1 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 [Docket No. 52] is accepted.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Her Complaint [Docket No. 31] is granted. With the exception of Counts I, II, and VII, plaintiff's tendered Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 32] is accepted.

3. Plaintiff shall file a revised Second Amended Complaint on or before June 17, 2019.

DATED June 5, 2019.

BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

Chief United States District Judge