Maria J. Prkic v. Sezzle, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN MARIA J. PRKIC, Plaintiff, v. SEZZLE, INC., Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 165]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.

Docket No. 165 at 19-20; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on March 17, 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 of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 165] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant Sezzle Inc.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [Docket No. 125] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further ORDERED that plaintiffs EPEWA discrimination claim is DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's wrong termination in violation of public policy claim based on alleged EPEWA violations is DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim based on Sezzle’s failure to confer on plaintiff an official AML title and corresponding pay is DISMISSED.

DATED April 7, 2026.

BY THE COURT: ia of 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).