Geiger v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS
DAWN GEIGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHUBB GROUP,
CHUBB, and
GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a CHUBB,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 130]. The Recommendation states that objections to the
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.
Docket No. 130 at 6; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was
served on November 1, 2024. 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
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 131 filed 11/20/24 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

2
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 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket
No. 130] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that the Unopposed Attorneys’ Fee Request in Connection with
Order Granting Sanctions Motions [Docket No. 128] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that defendants Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company, Federal
Insurance Company, Chubb INA Holdings Inc. n/k/a Chubb INA Holdings LLC, and
Chubb Group Holdings Inc. are collectively awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$15,224.50 from plaintiff.
DATED November 20, 2024.
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-01080-PAB-KAS Document 131 filed 11/20/24 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2