IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Daniel D. Domenico

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00099-DDD-STV

MARTIN J. FLANNERY,

Plaintiff, v.

BOXER F2 L.P.,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is the recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak that the Court enter judgment in favor of De- fendant Boxer F2 L.P. (Doc. 111.) The recommendation states that ob- jections to the recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. (Doc. 111 at 19 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).) The recommendation was served on January 27, 2022, and no party has objected to it.1 In the absence of a timely objection, the Court may review a magis- trate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. Summers v. Utah,

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

(1985)). In this matter, the Court has re- viewed the recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error

1 The report and recommendation is dated on January 27, 2022. How- ever, the text entry on the docket shows that it was entered on January 28, 2022. (Doc. 111.) Even using the January 28, 2022, no party objected within 14-days or at all. on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes. Based on that review, the Court has concluded that the recom- mendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. The Court agrees with Judge Varholak’s determination that Mr. Flannery failed to show good cause to amend his complaint and an amendment would cause undue delay and prejudice. (Doc. 111 at 3-7.) The Court also agrees with Judge Varholak’s determinations that Mr. Flannery failed to file his action within the applicable statute of limitations and equita- ble tolling is inapplicable in these circumstances. Ud. at 11-19.) Using the Fair Labor Standards Act three-year statute of limitations and De- cember 28, 2019 as the relevant commencement date, the disputed pay- ments from August 5, 2016 to December 23, 2016 are time barred. (Ud. at 13-15.) Mr. Flannery’s January 6, 2017 paycheck is also time barred because Mr. Flannery did not commence the action until January 13, 2020—the date reflected by the file stamp from the Clerk on the com- plaint. Ud. at 17.) CONCLUSION

The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 111) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 99) is DENIED. Defendant’s First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 78) is GRANTED. Defendant’s Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 88) is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant.

DATED: February 25, 2022 BY THE COURT:

-2-