ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JILL N. PARRISH, District Judge.

Plaintiff Celtig, LLC brings this lawsuit against Defendants Aaron Patey, Evergreen Strategies, LLC, PSD International, LLC, and Relay Advanced Materials, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") seeking damages and declaratory relief for alleged breach of contract. (ECF No. 17). Defendants filed counterclaims against Plaintiff and claims against two sets of third-party defendants, Utah Lake Legacy Coalition, LLC, Brent Benjamin Woodson, and David Nielson (collectively "ULLC Third-Party Defendants"), and Phillip Cox, Michael Gunderson, and Impel Sales, LLC (collectively "Impel Third-Party Defendants"). (ECF No. 22). The court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (ECF No. 9). After a series of discovery disputes, both ULLC Third-Party Defendants and Impel Third-Party Defendants filed a "motion for entry of default judgment against all defendants and counterclaimants" (the "motions"). (ECF Nos. 154 and 158). Defendants filed a response in opposition to only the Impel Third-Party Defendants' motion and Impel Third-Party Defendants replied. (ECF Nos. 166, 169).

After reviewing the parties' briefing and holding oral argument on June 25, 2019, Judge Furse issued a Report and Recommendation advising this court to grant in part and deny in part the ULLC Third-Party Defendants' and Impel Third-Party Defendants' motions. (ECF Nos. 185, 186). Each report specified that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), the parties were to file any objections with the court within fourteen (14) days of service. The time to object expired on September 6, 2019, and the court has received no objections to the Report and Recommendation. Defendants' failure to object waived any argument that the Report and Recommendation was in error. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). But the court notes that it need not apply this waiver rule as a procedural bar if "the interests of justice so dictate." Id. (quoting Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)).

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and its conclusion that the Third-Party Defendants' motions should be granted in part and denied in part, the court concludes that the Report and Recommendation is not clearly erroneous and finds that the interests of justice do not warrant deviation from the waiver rule. Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:

SO ORDERED.