Lewandowski v. City of Longmont, The

D. Colorado

Lewandowski v. City of Longmont, The

District Court, D. Colorado·Decided June 17, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-01897·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 23-cv-01897-PAB-NRN

ROBERT LEWANDOWSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER STEPHEN DESMOND, in his official and individual capacity,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 130]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 130 at 6; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on May 23, 2025. No party has objected to the Recommendation. 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’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 Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 130] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 87] is DENIED. DATED June 17, 2025. BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

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). 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 23-cv-01897-PAB-NRN

ROBERT LEWANDOWSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER STEPHEN DESMOND, in his official and individual capacity,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 130]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 130 at 6; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on May 23, 2025. No party has objected to the Recommendation. 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’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 Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 130] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 87] is DENIED. DATED June 17, 2025. BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

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). 2

Lewandowski v. City of Longmont, The, (D. Colo. 2025).

Pincite

Lewandowski v. City of Longmont, The (Lewandowski v. City of Longmont, The) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related