Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180322_0000364.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:28:46+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Megna v. Little Switzerland of America Candy Factory, Inc.
Megna v. Little Switzerland of America Candy Factory, Inc.
LITTLE SWITZERLAND OF AMERICA CANDY FACTORY, INC., KRISTINE M. ULLEMEYER, HAYES ULLEMEYER, Defendants.
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge, recommending denying the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 31.) The R&R advised the parties that they had 14 days to file specific written objections to the R&R in order to preserve de novo review. (Id. at 14-15.) Fourteen days later, defendants filed objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiffs did not file any objections to the R&R, but, did file a response to defendants' objections (ECF No. 41).
A district court may refer pending motions to a magistrate judge for entry of a report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The court is free to accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A party is entitled to a de novo review of those portions of the report and recommendation to which specific objection is made. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), (3). “[O]bjections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E. 30 St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996); see also See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate.”). Furthermore, arguments not raised before the magistrate judge need not be considered by this Court. Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived.”).
The Magistrate Judge, first, recommended disposing of the motion to dismiss solely under Rule 12(b)(6) because defendants' jurisdictional questions were intertwined with the merits of the case. (ECF No. 31 at 4-5.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended declining to consider various documents defendants had attached to a prior version of the motion to dismiss. (Id. at 5-7.) Defendants do not raise any objections to these recommendations. (See ECF No. 33 at 1-2.) As a result, the Court ADOPTS the R&R to the extent it recommends disposing of the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) only and declining to consider the documents attached to a prior version of the motion to dismiss.
The Magistrate Judge, next, recommended rejecting defendants' argument that claim and issue preclusion barred plaintiffs' claims. (ECF No. 31 at 7-8.) The Magistrate Judge found an analogous case persuasive, and that defendants failed to sufficiently develop this argument and failed to address plaintiffs' arguments in opposition thereto. (Id.) Defendants do not object to this recommendation either. (ECF No. 33 at 1-2.) As a result, the Court ADOPTS the R&R to the extent it recommends rejecting claim and issue preclusion as bases for dismissing plaintiffs' claims.
The Magistrate Judge, next, recommended that supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over plaintiffs' State law claims because plaintiffs' federal claims remained. (ECF No. 31 at 13.) Defendants do not raise any objection to this recommendation. (See ECF No. 33 at 1-2.) In any event, because the Court agrees that plaintiffs' federal claims should not be dismissed, the Court ADOPTS the R&R to the extent it recommends exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' State law claims.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §636
 §636
 v. 
 v. 
 v.