Suson v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company

Opinion

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

Civil Action No. 25-cv-00089-PAB

S.S., a minor child, and ROBIN SUSON, next best friend,

Plaintiffs, v.

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation licensed to conduct business in Colorado,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 11]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 11 at 3; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on January 27, 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.”' 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 Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 11] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Remand [Docket No. 10] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this matter is remanded, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), to the District Court for Denver County, Colorado, where the case was filed as case number 2024CV33034. It is further ORDERED that this case is closed. DATED February 13, 2025. BY THE COURT: ac Lf PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

' 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).