Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-01938-CNS-SBP
11-06-2023
TANYA RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Defendant.
ORDER
Charlotte N. Sweeney, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 43) by United States Magistrate Judge Susan Prose issued on October 19, 2023, recommending that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (ECF No. 40) be granted in part and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.
The parties were advised that they had fourteen days, after being served with a copy of the Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge assigned to the case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Prose's Recommendation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a magistrate judge may consider dispositive motions and submit recommendations to the Court. When a magistrate judge submits a recommendation, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A party's failure to file such written objections may bar the party from a de novo determination by the district judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). When this occurs, the Court is “accorded considerable discretion” and “may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).
After reviewing all the relevant pleadings, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Prose's analysis was thorough and comprehensive, the Recommendation is well reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Prose's Recommendation (ECF No. 43) as an order of this Court, the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART. This case is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.