Michael David Price v. United Airlines, Inc., Lyssa Latu, Paula Reppas, David...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00813-CNS-TPO MICHAEL DAVID PRICE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., LYSSA LATU, PAULA REPPAS, DAVID BAUDIER, ANASTASIA HOSACK, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, BRIAN BRYANT, MIKE KLEMM, and WILLIAM STEF, Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommendation, ECF No. 73, by United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O’Hara issued on February 17, 2026, recommending that the Union Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 41, and the United Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 43, be GRANTED, and that the United Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions, ECF No. 49, be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.

The parties were advised that they had fourteen days, after being served with a copy of the Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge assigned to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge O’Hara’s Recommendation.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court may designate a magistrate judge to consider dispositive motions and submit recommendations to the Court. When a magistrate judge submits a recommendation, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s failure to file such written objections may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). When this occurs, the Court is “accorded considerable discretion” and “may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).

After reviewing all the relevant pleadings, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge O’Hara’s analyses were thorough and comprehensive, the Recommendation is well-reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge O’Hara’s Recommendation as an order of this Court. See ECF No. 73. The Union Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 41, is GRANTED. All claims against Defendant International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and all claims against the individual Union Defendants (Brian Bryant, Mike Klemm, and Willam Stef) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The United Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 43, is GRANTED. All claims against the United Defendants (United Airlines, Inc., Lyssa Latu, Paula Reppas, David Baudier, and Anastasia Hosack) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The United Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions, ECF No. 49, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED this 12th day of March 2026.

BY TH ry, Charlotte ¥Y-Sweeney United S District Judge