SAUNDERS v. U.S., 15-cv-00805-RM-CBS. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20160308893
Visitors: 23
Filed: Mar. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2016
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the February 16, 2016 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 38) to grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21). 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 c
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the February 16, 2016 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 38) to grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21). 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 co..
More
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the February 16, 2016 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 38) to grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21). 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. 38 at 6-7.) 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 Shaffer's analysis 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 is, therefore, adopted as an order of this Court.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court:
(1) ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation of United States Magistrate (ECF No. 38) in its entirety;
(2) GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21);
(3) DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint; and
(4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.
Source: Leagle
