Oertli v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 25-cv-01815-PAB-STV
MARY CECILE OERTLI,
Plaintiff,
v.
OWNERS INSURANCE COMPNAY, an Ohio corporation,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 37]. The Recommendation states that objections to the
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties.
Docket No. 37 at 8 n.3; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was
served on December 18, 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
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. 1:25-cv-01815-PAB-STV Document 38 filed 01/06/26 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. 37] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 31] is
GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s exemplary damages request is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
DATED January 6, 2026.
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. 1:25-cv-01815-PAB-STV Document 38 filed 01/06/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2