Affordify, Inc. v. Medac, Inc.

D. Colorado

Affordify, Inc. v. Medac, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 25, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-02082

StatusUnknown

This text of Affordify, Inc. v. Medac, Inc. (Affordify, Inc. v. Medac, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Affordify, Inc. v. Medac, Inc., (D. Colo. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 19-cv-02082-CMA-NRN

AFFORDIFY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDAC, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE N. REID NEUREITER

This matter is before the Court on the December 26, 2019 Amended Recommendation (Doc. # 43) by United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter, wherein he recommends that Defendant Medac, Inc.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 24) should 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 Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 43 at 8.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Neureiter’s Recommendation have been filed by either party. “[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 Neureiter, 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 that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (Doc. # 43) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Medac, Inc.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 24) is DENIED.

DATED: January 25, 2020

BY THE COURT:

— Wie rn CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 19-cv-02082-CMA-NRN

AFFORDIFY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDAC, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE N. REID NEUREITER

This matter is before the Court on the December 26, 2019 Amended Recommendation (Doc. # 43) by United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter, wherein he recommends that Defendant Medac, Inc.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 24) should 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 Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 43 at 8.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Neureiter’s Recommendation have been filed by either party. “[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 Neureiter, 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 that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (Doc. # 43) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Medac, Inc.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 24) is DENIED.

DATED: January 25, 2020

BY THE COURT:

— Wie rn CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Affordify, Inc. v. Medac, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/affordify-inc-v-medac-inc-cod-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack