Friederich v. Wachter, Inc.

Opinion

In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas _____________

Case No. 24-cv-02462-TC-ADM _____________

BRIANNA D. FRIEDERICH,

Plaintiff

v.

WACHTER, INC.,

Defendant _____________

ORDER

Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell issued a Report and Recom- mendation advising that Defendant Wachter’s Motion for Sanctions, Doc. 27, should be granted insofar as it requests that Plaintiff Brianna Friederich’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 31. Friederich has neglected to comply with her discovery obligations, ig- nored multiple court orders, and generally failed to prosecute her case. Id. When a magistrate judge has issued a report and recommendation on a dispositive pretrial matter, a party objecting to the recommenda- tion must “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The district judge must then determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The dis- trict judge may accept, reject, or modify the recom- mended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This means that objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition must be “both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court . . . .” United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). To be timely, the objection must be made within 14 days after service of a copy of the recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections are sufficiently specific if they “fo- cus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute.” One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1060. Where a party fails to make a proper objection, a district court may review the rec- ommendation under any standard it deems appropriate, even for clear error. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted); Gilbert v. United States Olympic Comm., 423 F. Supp. 3d 1112, 1125 (D. Colo. 2019). Friederich has not filed a timely objection. After reviewing Judge Mitchell’s Report and Recommendation, there appears no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 31, is adopted in full. Wachter’s Motion for Sanctions, Doc. 27, is GRANTED as set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and Friederich’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

It is so ordered.

Date: July 11, 2025 s/ Toby Crouse Toby Crouse United States District Judge