Daniel K. Miller, Elizabeth D. Wilhour, and Sean M. Wilhour v. Asset Living, LLC, AMFP V Central Park LLC, and Shanna Martinez

Opinion

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

Civil Action No. 24-cv-02687-NYW-TPO

DANIEL K. MILLER, ELIZABETH D. WILHOUR, and SEAN M. WILHOUR,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ASSET LIVING, LLC, AMFP V CENTRAL PARK LLC, and SHANNA MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation issued by the Honorable Timothy P. O’Hara on February 17, 2026. [Doc. 164]. The Recommendation concerns two pending Motions: (1) Defendants Asset Living and Shanna Martinez’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First, Third, Fifth, and Eighth Claims for Relief, [Doc. 118], and Defendant AMFP V Central Park, LLC Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First, Third, Fifth and Eighth Claims For Relief, [Doc. 128]. Judge O’Hara recommends that both Motions to Dismiss be granted, that Claims One and Five be dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants, and that Claims Three and Eight be dismissed without prejudice as to all Defendants. [Doc. 164 at 16]. He recommends that this action proceed with respect to Claims Two, Four, Six, and Seven, which are not challenged in the Motions to Dismiss. [Id.]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the Parties. [Id. at 16 n.6]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 17, 2026. See [Doc. 164 at 17]. 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.”1 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 [Doc. 164] is ADOPTED; (2) Defendants Asset Living and Shanna Martinez’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First, Third, Fifth, and Eighth Claims for Relief [Doc. 118] is GRANTED; (3) Defendant AMFP V Central Park, LLC Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First, Third, Fifth and Eighth Claims For Relief [Doc. 128]

1 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). is GRANTED; (4) Claims One and Five are DISMISSED with prejudice as to all Defendants; (5) Claims Three and Eight are DISMISSED without prejudice as to all Defendants; and (6) |The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to: Daniel K. Miller 1950 Trenton Street #114 Denver, CO 80220 Elizabeth Wilhour 1950 Trenton Street #114 Denver, CO 80220 and Sean Wilhour 1950 Trenton Street #114 Denver, CO 80220

DATED: March 12, 2026 BY THE COURT: yh ry Y. Wang ) United States District Judge