Price v. CenturyTel of Colorado, Inc.
Filing
28
ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge # 27 is ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) # 13 is GRANTED. The first and second claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim on wh ich relief could be granted. They are barred by the statute of limitations. The third and fourth claims asserted in the complaint were withdrawn by the plaintiff. See Response # 17 at 22-23. Therefore, this civil action is dismissed with prejudice. As the prevailing party, defendant is awarded its reasonable costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 03/11/13. (alvsl)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 11-CV-2542-RBJ-KMT
BEVERLY J. PRICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTURYTEL OF COLORADO, INC., d/b/a Century Link, f/k/a QWEST
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the February 14, 2013 Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya [docket #27]. As relevant here, the Recommendation addresses
defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) [#13]. The
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Despite this
advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Tafoya’s Recommendation was filed by either
party. “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report
under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.
1991) (citing 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
1
novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”)).
The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation. Based
on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analyses and recommendations
are correct, and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation as the findings
and conclusions of this Court.
Order
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#27] is ADOPTED.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) [#13] is
GRANTED. The first and second claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim on
which relief could be granted. They are barred by the statute of limitations. The third
and fourth claims asserted in the complaint were withdrawn by the plaintiff. See
Response [#17] at ¶¶22-23. Therefore, this civil action is dismissed with prejudice.
3. As the prevailing party, defendant is awarded its reasonable costs pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
DATED this 11th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
