Oliver Batista v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Consumer Financial Protection...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 24-cv-02454-PAB-SBP OLIVER BATISTA, Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, and RUSSELL VOUGHT, in his official capacity as acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation and Order of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 129]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 129 at 7 n.3; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 25, 2026. No party has objected to the Recommendation.

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’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 Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation and Order of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 129] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's and Russell Vought’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Docket No. 67] is DENIED without prejudice as moot.

DATED March 13, 2026.

BY THE COURT: a CF PHILIP A. BRIMMER 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).