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

Civil Action No. 20-cv-02959-CMA-MEH

JESSICA MONTANEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

FUTURE VISION BRAIN BANK, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the April 7, 2021 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. # 39.) Therein, Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty recommends that this Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. # 33), which seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See

(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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. # 39 at 16.) Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation has been filed by either party. “[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,

(10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn,

(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.”)). After reviewing the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hegarty, in addition to applicable portions of the record and relevant 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 that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 39) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 33) is DENIED. DATED: April 29, 2021 BY THE COURT:

— Wie rn CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge