United States District Court, District of Colorado
February 3, 2015
DOUGLAS BURNS, Plaintiff,
TED LAURANCE, TEJINDER SINGH, and MICHAEL ASSEN, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING JANUARY 12, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
William J. Martínez, Judge
This matter is before the Court on the January 12, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 219) that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 213) be granted. 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 that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 219, at 31.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation have been received to date.
The Court 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.”).
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 219) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
(2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 213) is GRANTED; and
(3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter Judgment in favor of Defendants. Each party shall bear his own costs.