Prkic v. Sezzle Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN
MARIA J. PRKIC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEZZLE, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 165]. The Recommendation states that objections to the
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.
Docket No. 165 at 19-20; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation
was served on March 17, 2026. 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. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN Document 173 filed 04/07/26 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. 165] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant Sezzle Inc.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint [Docket No. 125] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is
further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s EPEWA discrimination claim is DISMISSED. It is
further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s wrong termination in violation of public policy claim
based on alleged EPEWA violations is DISMISSED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim
based on Sezzle’s failure to confer on plaintiff an official AML title and corresponding
pay is DISMISSED.
DATED April 7, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
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. 1:24-cv-02624-PAB-NRN Document 173 filed 04/07/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2