Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Oliver Batista v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Russell Vought, in his official capacity as acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

District Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:24-cv-02454

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 24-cv-02454-PAB-SBP

OLIVER BATISTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, and

RUSSELL VOUGHT, in his official capacity as acting Director of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation and Order of United
States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 129]. The Recommendation states that objections
to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the
parties. Docket No. 129 at 7 n.3; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on February 25, 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
to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”' 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 and Order of United States Magistrate
Judge [Docket No. 129] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's and
Russell Vought’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [Docket No. 67] is DENIED
without prejudice as moot.
DATED March 13, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
a CF
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

' 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).