ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

WILEY Y. DANIEL, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Recommendation"), filed February 23, 2016. (ECF No. 58). In the Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Tafoya recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48) be granted. (Recommendation at 19). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 36(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, written objections are due within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. Here, no objections were filed to the Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.

Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Tafoya's Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Tafoya that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted for the reasons noted in both the Recommendation and this Order.

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tafoya (ECF No. 58) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED.