United States District Court, D. Colorado
May 5, 2014
WALTER MYERS, KATHERINE MYERS, AMANDA WEAKLAND, and PATRICK WEAKLAND Plaintiffs,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an agency of the United States, Defendant, and PARK CENTER WATER DISTRICT, Defendant-Intervenor.
ORDER ADOPTING FEBRUARY 12, 2014, RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF NO. 84) AND GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANT BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 26)
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 84) on Defendant Bureau of Land Management's ("BLM") Amended Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Complaint (ECF No. 26). Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland recommended that Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs' Third Claim for Relief and request for civil penalties be dismissed as they have been withdrawn. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties they had 14 days to serve and file specific, written objections to the Recommendation. (ECF No. 84, page 6 n.2.) No objection was filed to the Recommendation and the time to do so has expired.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and the file, and concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah , 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ("In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate."). It is therefore
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 84) is ADOPTED in its entirety as an order of this Court;
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant BLM's Amended Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Complaint (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' Second Claim for Relief and this claim is hereby DISMISSED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Plaintiffs' request, the Third Claim for Relief and claim for civil penalties against Defendant BLM are hereby DISMISSED.