The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Drahota Development Company, LLC ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 21-cv-01704-CMA-MEH THE INSUARNACE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. DRAHOTA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, n/k/a Drahota PRECISE MASONRY, INC., d/b/a/ QM Company, WESTCO FRAMERS, LLC, and NATIVE EXCAVATING, INC., Defendants. _______________________________________________________/ DRAHOTA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC Third Party Plaintiff, v. PRECISE MASONARY, INC., WESTCO FRAMERS, LLC, NATIVE EXCAVATING, INC., TICO’S ROOFING, INC., BUILDER SERVICES GROUP, INC., d/b/a Thermal Concepts, TABER PLUMBING & HEATING, INC., GRAND COUNTRY ROOFING AND SHEETING METAL, INC., d/b/a The Roofing Company, and LANDMARK CONSULATNATS, INC., Third Party Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JANUARY 12, 2023, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the January 12, 2023, Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 193), wherein Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty recommends that Third Party Defendant Tico’s Roofing, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 176) be denied. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court affirms and adopts the Recommendation for the following reasons. The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 193 at 10 n.2.) Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation has been filed. “[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing 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”)). After reviewing the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hegarty, in addition to applicable portions of the record and relevant legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: The January 12, 2023, Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 193) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Third Party Defendant Tico’s Roofing, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 176) is DENIED. DATED: January 30, 2023 BY THE COURT: CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO Senior United States District Judge