Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission v. Bowling

Opinion

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

Civil Action No. 20-cv-02942-CMA-NYW

INTERSTATE MEDICAL LICENSURE COMPACT COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

WANDA BOWLING,

Defendant.

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Amended Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. (Doc. # 33). Judge Wang recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) be denied and that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims (Doc. # 17) be granted in part and denied in part. Neither party objects to Judge Wang’s recommendation.1 “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); 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’s

1 Judge Wang advised the parties that specific written objections were due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. #33, p. 54 n. 22). Despite this advisement, neither party filed a timely objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). Applying this standard, | am satisfied that Judge Wang’s Amended Recommendation 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 Judge Wang’s Amended Recommendation (Doc. # 33), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim (Doc. # 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Counterclaims | (misclassification) and III (wrongful termination — False Claims Act) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Counterclaims || (wrongful termination) and V (intentional infliction of emotional distress) are DISMISSED insofar as they are premised on federal law. The remaining counterclaims are: Counterclaim II (state law claim for wrongful termination) Counterclaim IV (defamation) and Counterclaim V (state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress). DATED: July 16, 2021 BY THE COURT:

— Wie rn CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge