Borgese v. Burba

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Nina Y. Wang

Civil Action No. 21-cv-01134-NYW-KLM

CHRISTINA M. BORGESE, MARK PRIVITERA, and NORTH AMERICA LITHIUM, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN BURBA, and INTERNATIONAL BATTERY METALS, LTD.,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix issued on October 25, 2022. [Doc. 48]. Judge Mix recommends that Defendant John Burba’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against Plaintiffs Christina M. Borgese and Marc Privitera [Doc. 35] be denied. See [id. at 12]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the Parties. [Id. at 12-13]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on October 25, 2022. See [Doc. 48]. No Party has objected to the Recommendation and the time to do so has elapsed. 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 Judge’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.”! Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix [Doc. 48] is ADOPTED; and (2) Defendant John Burba’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against Plaintiffs Christina M. Borgese and Marc Privitera [Doc. 35] is DENIED.

DATED: November 10, 2022 BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

| 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).