Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-0306-WJM-MEH
02-26-2014
LEONARD E. LOVE, Petitioner, v. CHARLES A. DANIELS, Respondent.
Judge William J. Martínez
ORDER ADOPTING FEBRUARY 7, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court on the February 7, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 66) that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 62) be granted. 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. 66, at 1 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been received.
The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge'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.").
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 66) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Based on Mootness (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED; (3) Petitioner's Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 5) is DISMISSED as MOOT; and (3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. Each party shall bear his own attorney's fees and costs.
BY THE COURT:
__________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge