United States District Court, D. Colorado
XO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Colorado Corporation, and ATHEROCOR, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiffs,
DR. JEFFREY RAINES, and MATT KAHN, Defendants.
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
On February 26, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya issued an Amended Recommendation ("Recommendation") that this case "be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice" and "that all pending motions be denied as moot." (ECF No. 61.) The Recommendation was based on Plaintiffs' failure to obtain counsel,  failure to respond to the Magistrate Judge's Order to Show Cause, and failure to prosecute this case. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that any party may serve and file written objections to the Recommendation within fourteen days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. Defendants timely filed a "Notice of No Objection to Amended Recommendation" (ECF No. 63). Despite the Magistrate Judge's advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by Plaintiffs and the time to do has expired. ( See generally Dkt.)
The Court has considered the Recommendation, and all other relevant matters, 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."). The Recommendation is, therefore, adopted as an order of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED
1) That the Amended Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 61) is ADOPTED in its entirety and made an Order of this Court;
2) That Plaintiffs' entire action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
3) That all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and
4) That the Clerk of the Court is directed to ...