Roldan v. NewRez, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Nina Y. Wang

Civil Action No. 22-cv-03168-NYW-MDB

GENARO R. ROLDAN, and CLAUDIA S. ROLDAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEWREZ, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell, issued on April 19, 2024 (“Recommendation”). [Doc. 40]. Judge Dominguez Braswell recommends denying the Motion to Leave to File Amended Complaint.1 [Doc. 34]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the Parties. [Doc. 40 at 12–13]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on April 19, 2024. No Party has objected to the Recommendation and the time to do so has elapsed. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s

1 Once again, Defendant refers to Judge Dominguez Braswell as “the magistrate.” [Doc. 36 at 2]. As this Court previously advised Defendant’s counsel, the proper title is “Magistrate Judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 631; [Doc. 32 at 7 n.2]. This Court expects that all counsel—particularly those based in the District of Colorado—will use the proper title in addressing United States Magistrate Judges. 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 judge’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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) | The Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell [Doc. 40] is ADOPTED; (2) | The Motion to Leave to File Amended Complaint [Doc. 34] is DENIED; (3) | The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case; and (4) | The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to: Claudia S. and Genaro R. Roldan 1411 Rushmore Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80910

DATED: May 15, 2024 BY THE COURT: phan United States District Judge

2 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).