IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02438-PAB-BNB

ALVIN MOSCH,

PATRICIA C. MOSCH, and

DAVID K. MOSCH, each individually and d/b/a Mosch Mining Company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN HENRY, a/k/a John T. Henry a/k/a John L. Henry,

UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, and any one claiming by

of through any of the named persons,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland filed on March 7, 2013 [Docket No. 162]. The

Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within

fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The

Recommendation was served on March 7, 2013. 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)

(“[i]t 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

Case 1:11-cv-02438-PAB-BNB Document 165 Filed 04/10/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary 1

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).

2

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.”1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court

concludes that the Recommendation does contain a clear error. The affidavit [Docket

No. 155-1] in support of the motion for attorneys’ fees [Docket No. 155] seeks

attorneys’ fees at a rate of $250.00 per hour before January 1, 2013 and $300.00 per

hour after that date. However, in multiplying the number of hours reasonably incurred

by the reasonable hourly rate, which the Recommendation found to be between

$250.00 and $300.00, the Recommendation used a rate of $350.00 per hour, instead of

$300.00 per hour, after January 1, 2013. This clerical error resulted in the award being

overstated by $350.00. The Court finds no clear error in the Recommendation’s

calculation of the number of hours and no clear error in its approval of a rate ranging

from $250.00 to $300.00 per hour. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 162] is

ACCEPTED in part and REJECTED in part. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Judgment for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses

Incurred [Docket No. 155] is granted in part. Plaintiffs are awarded attorney fees in the

amount of $49,200.00.

Case 1:11-cv-02438-PAB-BNB Document 165 Filed 04/10/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

DATED April 10, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02438-PAB-BNB Document 165 Filed 04/10/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3