Petrol Logic LLC v. G&A Outsourcing LLC

Opinion

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

Civil Action No. 22-cv-02219-PAB-SBP

PETROL LOGIC LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, RUBY CANYON DENTAL GROUP PC, a Colorado professional corporation, DC DENTAL PLLC d/b/a FRUITA FAMILY DENTAL, a Colorado professional limited liability company, and CRESTED OAK DENTISTRY PLLC, a Colorado professional limited liability company, individually on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

G&A OUTSOURCING, LLC, d/b/a G&A PARTNERS, a Texas limited liability company,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 52]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation are due by September 13, 2024. Docket No. 52; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on August 30, 2024. Docket No. 52. No party has objected to the Recommendation. On August 13, 2024, plaintiffs filed a stipulated motion for extension of time to amend the complaint and to continue the case schedule. Docket No. 48. On August 15, 2024, Magistrate Judge Susan Prose issued an order to show cause as to why the court should not recommend administratively closing the case due to the parties’ request for more time to finalize a complex settlement agreement. Docket No. 50 at 4. On August 29, 2024, the parties filed a joint response to the order to show cause stating that they agree the case should be administratively closed. Docket No. 51 at 1. 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 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 52] is ACCEPTED in part. It is further

ORDERED that the Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint and to Continue Case Schedule [Docket No. 48] is DENIED.2 It is further ORDERED that this case is administratively closed, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, subject to being reopened for good cause shown. It is further

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 Due to the court administratively closing the case, the motion for extension of time is denied as moot. D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.

2 ORDERED that the parties shall file a status report on or before October 30, 2024. DATED September 17, 2024. BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge