Illinois Union Insurance Company v. Club Valencia Condominium Owners Association, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 23-cv-01054-PAB-NRN
ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff, Counter Defendant,
v.
CLUB VALENCIA CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Defendant, Counterclaimant, Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
LCM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
CHERRY CREEK INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., d/b/a CCIG, and
CRC INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC,
Third-Party Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation on
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment [Docket No. 221]. The Recommendation states that objections to
the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.
Docket No. 221 at 13-14; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation
was served on October 14, 2025. 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
Case No. 1:23-cv-01054-PAB-NRN Document 222 filed 10/31/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

2
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.” 1 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 Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
[Docket No. 221] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment [Docket No. 194] is DENIED.
DATED October 31, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
1 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).
Case No. 1:23-cv-01054-PAB-NRN Document 222 filed 10/31/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2