Searcy v. United States

Full title: ESTATE OF VIOLA MAY SEARCY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Apr 15, 2016

Civil Action No. 16-cv-00395-PAB-MJW (D. Colo. Apr. 15, 2016)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 16-cv-00395-PAB-MJW

04-15-2016

ESTATE OF VIOLA MAY SEARCY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe filed on March 28, 2016 [Docket No. 19]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 19 at 4; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on March 28, 2016. 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. For the foregoing reasons, 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 that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 19] is ACCEPTED. It is further

ORDERED that the United States' Response in Opposition to Motion to Quash and Set Aside Notice of Levy [Docket No. 11], which is construed as a motion to remand, is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Quash [Docket No. 3] is DENIED insofar as the Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. It is further

ORDERED that this case be REMANDED to Mesa County Combined Courts where it was filed as Case No. 2015-PR-82.

DATED April 15, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge