ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the February 2, 2019 Recommendation of United State Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. ECF No. 48. The Recommendation addresses defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 40. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Briefly, Mr. Hammond is an inmate in the Colorado Department of Corrections. The essence of his complaint, as amended, is that while incarcerated in the Boulder County Jail his constitutional rights were violated because (1) he was placed in "the hole" for five days without an hour out, a phone call or mail out, a shower, soap, a tooth brush or tooth paste; (2) there were human feces and urine on the walls, floor and bedding; and (3) his ability to sleep was hindered by an officer's repetitive banging on the door of his cell(s) every 30 minutes. Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Hammond's three then-remaining claims. ECF No. 40. Mr. Hammond responded, ECF No. 44, and the defendants replied. ECF No. 45. In a 12-page written Recommendation issued February 15, 2019 the magistrate judge recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted as to claims 2 and 12 but denied as to claim 5. ECF No. 48.

In her Recommendation the magistrate judge advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Id. at 12 n. 4. Accordingly, objections were due, allowing three extra days for service, on March 4, 2019. Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Wang's Recommendation has been filed by either party. I note that at the time Mr. Hammond was located at the Boulder County Jail, 3200 Airport Road, Boulder, CO 80301-2226, which is the address at which the Recommendation was served. He was still at that address at least by March 26, 2019 when he filed what he called an "opening brief." ECF No. 52. On April 29, 2019 Mr. Hammond notified the Court that his address had changed to FCF P.O. Box 999, Canyon City, CO 81215. ECF No. 62.

"In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate'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) ("It 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

Accordingly, the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Wang, ECF No. 48, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 40, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice with the sole exception of his fifth claim for relief.