ORDER

RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the September 11, 2017, Recommendation and Order (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 84) of United States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak to dismiss sua sponte Defendants "Associate Director & Members of CDOC Infectious Disease Committee" and "Colorado State Legislative Body" (collectively, the "State Defendants"). The Magistrate Judge recommends the following: (1) to the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert claims against the State Defendants as entities, his claims against them be dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment; and (2) to the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert claims against the individual members of the State Defendants, his claims against them be dismissed for failure to state a claim.1 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. 84, pages 7-8.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by any party and the time to do so has expired. (See generally Dkt.)

The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Varholak's analysis that dismissal is warranted 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, however, did not distinguish between dismissals with or without prejudice. The Court finds it should do so.

Dismissals based on Eleventh Amendment immunity should be without prejudice. Colby v. Herrick, 849 F.3d 1273, 1278 (10th Cir. 2017). Dismissals for failure to state a claim in this instance, however, is with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (with certain exceptions, unless the dismissal order states otherwise, dismissal is on the merits). Accordingly, the dismissal of the State Defendants, to the extent they are sued as entities, is without prejudice. The dismissal of the individual members of the State Defendants, however, is with prejudice.2 In accordance with the foregoing, the Court: