Nyborg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Civil Action No. 20-cv-01918-RM-KLM JANICE NYBORG, and CLOTILDE SZELKOWSKI, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This insurance lawsuit is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (ECF No. 132) to grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 109). For the reasons below, the Court accepts the Recommendation, which is incorporated into this Order by reference.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

As set forth in more detail in the Recommendation, Plaintiffs bring three claims against Defendant. After the Court accepted and adopted the magistrate judge’s previous Recommendation (ECF No. 45) to grant in part and deny in part a previous Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs amended the Complaint. Defendant’s new Motion addresses only six new allegations included in the amended Complaint. The magistrate judge determined that the allegations regarding Defendant’s failure to investigate whether Plaintiffs lived together and its misrepresentation to Plaintiff Szelkowski were too conclusory, and therefore her claims should be dismissed without prejudice to the extent they are premised on such allegations. The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. That deadline passed without a response from any party.

“In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).

The Court discerns no error on the face of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis of the issues presented in Defendant’s Motion. See Gallegos v. Smith, 401 F. Supp. 3d 1352, 1356-57 (D.N.M. 2019) (applying deferential review of the magistrate judge’s work in the absence of any objection).

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 132) and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 109), as stated above and in the Recommendation.

DATED this 16th day of August, 2022.

BY THE COURT: United States District Judge