Truman v. Brannan Sand Gravel Co.

Full title: KEITH TRUMAN, Plaintiff, v. BRANNAN SAND [AND] GRAVEL CO., Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Aug 29, 2011

Civil Action No. 10-cv-00801-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Aug. 29, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-00801-PAB-KLM

08-29-2011

KEITH TRUMAN, Plaintiff, v. BRANNAN SAND [AND] GRAVEL CO., Defendant.

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

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 June 23, 2011 [Docket No. 73]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on June 23, 2011. 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. 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, I have reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record."¹ See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Therefore, the Court will accept the Recommendation.

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 of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 73] is ACCEPTED. It is further

ORDERED that defendant's Objection to Certain Relief/Content Included by Plaintiff in Proposed Final Pretrial Order [Docket No. 55] is sustained to the extent that it objects to plaintiff's inclusion of requests for relief pertaining to attorneys' fees, lost wages, prejudgment interest, compensatory damages or punitive damages in the proposed Final Pretrial Order. Defendants' objections are otherwise overruled.

BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge