ORDER

RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the August 30, 2017, Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak (the "Recommendation") (ECF No.126) to deny Defendant the Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's and Plaintiff Intervenors' Third, Fourth, Fifth & Sixth Claims for Relief (ECF No. 93). The Magistrate Judge also recommends, in footnote 3, that Defendant be afforded leave to renew the issue of the applicable statute of limitations as to the Fourth Claim for Relief, after the Colorado Supreme Court resolves the question accepted in Rooftop Restorations, Inc. v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2017SA31 (Colo. Mar. 3, 2017). 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. 126 at pages 14-15.) 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 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: