OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS

MARCIA S. KRIEGER, Chief District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's February 26, 2015 Recommendation (# 127) that Animal Care's Motion to Dismiss (# 83) be granted in part and denied in part, that Hydropac's Motion for Partial Dismissal or for Summary Judgment (# 95) be denied, that Mr. O'Connor's Motion to Dismiss (# 101) be granted in part and denied in part.

More than 14 days have passed since service of the Recommendation on the parties, and no party has filed Objections pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In such circumstances, this Court reviews the Recommendation under whatever standard of review it deems appropriate. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). Notwithstanding the absence of objections, this Court has reviewed the Recommendation under the otherwise applicable de novo standard of Rule 72(b).

Upon such de novo review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and finds that it cannot materially improve upon the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-stated analysis. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation (# 127) in its entirety. Animal Care's Motion to Dismiss (# 83) is GRANTED IN PART, insofar as Hydropac's counterclaims for tortious interference and misappropriation of business value are dismissed, and DENIED IN PART, in all other respects. Hudropac's Motion for Partial Dismissal or for Summary Judgment (# 95) is DENIED in its entirety. Mr. O'Connor's Motion to Dismiss (# 101) is GRANTED IN PART, insofar as the misappropriation of business value claim against him is dismissed, and DENIED IN PART in all other respects. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, Hydropac may file a Third Amended Complaint that conforms to the instructions given in the Recommendation.