Roberts v. Benson

Opinion

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

Civil Action No. 21-cv-03029-CMA-NRN

CRAIG H. ROBERTS,

Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,

v.

DOUG BENSON,

Defendant/Counter Claimant.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the March 20, 2023 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 55). Therein, Judge N. Reid Neureiter recommends this Court (1) deny Defendant/Counter Claimant Doug Benson’s Motion to Amend Counterclaims and Scheduling Order (Doc. # 39) and (2) deny Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Craig H. Robert’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend to Seek Exemplary Damages (Doc. # 46). The Court affirms and adopts the Recommendation for the following reasons. “[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. 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) (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”)). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 55 at 16.) No party has filed any objection, and the time to do so has now expired. Having reviewed the Recommendation, the relevant portions of the record, and applicable legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: e The March 20, 2023 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 55) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court; e Defendant/Counter Claimant Doug Benson’s Motion to Amend Counterclaims and Scheduling Order (Doc. # 39) is DENIED; and e Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Craig H. Robert’s Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend Complaint to Seek Exemplary Damages (Doc. # 46) is DENIED. DATED: April 5, 2023 BY THE COURT:

— Wie rn CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO Senior United States District Judge