Garner v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America

Opinion

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

Civil Action No. 21-cv-01860-CMA

ERIC L. GARNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND ARICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, (UAW),

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MARCH 23, 2022 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, filed on March 23, 2022. (Doc. # 19.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. # 12) be granted in part and denied in part. (Recommendation at 19–20.) The Recommendation also advised the parties that specific written objections were due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 20 n.6.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation were filed by either party. AIn 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"). Applying this standard, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Wang is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (Doc. # 19) filed March 23, 2022, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. # 12) GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: e To the extent Claim One asserts a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(b) or is based on Defendant’s alleged failure to respond to Plaintiff's grievances, the Claim is DISMISSED, without prejudice. e Plaintiffs Claim Two is DISMISSED without prejudice; and e Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a motion to amend the complaint which complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules and is accompanied by a proposed amended pleading.

DATED: April 13, 2022 BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge