Sherman v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 21-cv-00938-PAB-SBP CANDACE ELAINE SHERMAN, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION 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 (10th 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. 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. DATED December 7, 2023. BY THE COURT: PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge 1This 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). 2