ORDER

R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the January 31, 2019 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix, ECF No. 68. The Recommendation addresses a consolidated motion to dismiss, ECF No. 54, by defendants Ian Conners, Martin Martinez and Edward Pierce for lack of jurisdiction and by defendants Daniel Armendariz, Ian Connors, Stephan Julian, Martin Martinez, John Oliver, Debra Payne, Edward Pierce and David Rhodes for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Mix recommends that I grant this motion to dismiss. 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation and that failure to make timely objections may bar de novo review by the district judge of the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. ECF No. 49 at 11. Despite this advisement, plaintiff did not file any objections.

"In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)) (stating that "[i]t 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"). The Court has reviewed the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analyses and recommendations are correct, and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mix [ECF No. 68] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Accordingly, the consolidated motion to dismiss the amended complaint [ECF No. 54] is GRANTED.