Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02539-WYD-MEH
10-04-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 5910 SOUTH OGDEN COURT, Defendant. ANA OROZCO. Claimant.
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Claimant's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer Pursuant to Fed. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), filed April 9, 2012. (ECF No. 35). The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty for a Recommendation by Order of Reference dated April 13, 2012. Magistrate Judge Hegarty issued a Recommendation on May 3, 2012. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that Claimant's motion be denied. (ECF No. 42, Recommendation at 1). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Magistrate Judge Hegarty advised the parties that written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 1). Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Note, 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).
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation is thorough, well reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Hegarty that Claimant's motion should be denied for the reasons stated in both the Recommendation and this Order.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty (ECF No. 42) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Claimant's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer Pursuant to Fed. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (ECF No. 35) is DENIED. Claimant's tendered First Amended Answer to Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem (ECF No. 34) is STRICKEN.
BY THE COURT:
____________
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief United States District Judge