Clark's Cherry Villa's Condominium Association, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Nina Y. Wang Civil Action No. 21-cv-03196-NYW-MEH CLARK’S CHERRY VILLA’S CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOES 1–5, Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty issued on October 13, 2022. [Doc. 47]. Judge Hegarty recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) [Doc. 29] be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Hegarty recommends denying the Motion to Dismiss insofar as Nationwide challenges the merits of Plaintiff’s claims even though Nationwide contends that it is not the proper party Defendant. See [Doc. 47 at 7–8]. Judge Hegarty further recommends that Plaintiff be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that replaces Nationwide Mutual Automobile Insurance Company with Scottsdale Insurance Company as the named insurer Defendant and to amend the First Amended Complaint to address any other pleading concerns that Nationwide raises in its Motion to Dismiss. [Id. at 8].

The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within days after its service on the Parties. [Id. at 8 n.3]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on October 13, 2022. See [Doc. 47]. No Party has objected to the Recommendation and the time to do so has elapsed.

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 judge’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’s note to 1983 amendment. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and a correct application of the facts and the law.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty [Doc.

47] is ADOPTED; (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 29] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; (3) Within seven (7) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint that replaces Nationwide Mutual Automobile Insurance Company with Scottsdale Insurance Company as the named insurer Defendant and makes any other changes to its claims for relief that Plaintiff determines are appropriate.

DATED: November 8, 2022 BY THE COURT: yh i Y. Wang 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).