ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the February 23, 2012 Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees be granted. (ECF No. 48.) 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. 48 at 1 n.2.) To date, neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.1 "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 concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation is correct and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 48) is ACCEPTED;

2. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED;

3. The Clerk shall award Plaintiff $49,362.00 in attorney's fees and $1,667.69 in costs.