“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.”
How later courts described this case
- “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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 24-cv-01057-PAB-STV
OCIE L. BROWN, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARMELLA WALLACE,
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP,
INTERSCOPE RECORDS, and
OPUS MUSIC GROUP,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 60]. The Recommendation states that objections to the
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.
Docket No. 60 at 16-17 n.6; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation
was served on February 28, 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 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket
No. 60] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Docket
No. 52] is GRANTED in part. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Docket No. 32] is DISMISSED
without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that this case is closed.
DATED March 18, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
oa of
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).