ORDER

R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the January 5, 2016 Order and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer [ECF No. 61]. The Recommendation addresses plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 55] and defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 56]. 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. ECF No. 61 at 6-7. Despite this advisement and permitting additional time for service and filing due to possible delays associated with the prison mail system, no objection to Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Recommendation was filed by either party. "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 relevant pleadings concerning 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.

ORDER