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

Civil Action No. 20-cv-00176-PAB-NYW

MARINA ANDREWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

EATON METAL PRODUCTS, LLC, and TIM TRAVIS,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang filed on September 8, 2020 [Docket No. 61]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See

(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on September 8, 2020. No party has objected to the Recommendation.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,

(10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (“It

1 On September 11, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel form where title was modified to state “Motion Object Order.” Docket No. 63 at 5. The motion states “COVID-19” in the portion of the form asking for a description of the nature of the action.

The Court does not construe this pleading as an objection to the recommendation, which, in any event, provides no description of any objection. 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.”2 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 as follows: 1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang [Docket No. 61] is ACCEPTED; 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 18] is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII, the ADA, and the PDA against Tim Travis in his individual capacity are DISMISSED with prejudice; 4. Any claim for disability discrimination pursuant to Title VII is DISMISSED with prejudice;

5. All other claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; 6. This case is closed. DATED September 30, 2020. BY THE COURT:

____________________________ PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief 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).