Sherman v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Full title: CANDACE ELAINE SHERMAN, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE…

Court: United States District Court, District of Colorado

Date published: Dec 7, 2023

Civil Action 21-cv-00938-PAB-SBP (D. Colo. Dec. 7, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 21-cv-00938-PAB-SBP

12-07-2023

CANDACE ELAINE SHERMAN, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation to Grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 111]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 111 at 11 n.5; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on November 22, 2023. 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 (10^th 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 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.

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).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Recommendation to Grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 111] is ACCEPTED. It is further

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Due to Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute and Comply with Rules and this Court's Orders [Docket No. 108] is GRANTED in part. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint, Docket No. 4, is DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further

ORDERED that this case is closed.