Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-cv-00979-WYD-MJW.
March 16, 2007
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court in connection with the following motions: (1) Motion to Dismiss Defendants Bennett, Cushing and Montoya [# 56], filed October 2, 2006; and the (2) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Defendants Kafati and Brown [# 57], filed October 2, 2006. The motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe for a recommendation by Order of Reference dated October 2, 2006. Magistrate Judge Watanabe issued a Recommendation on February 28, 2007, that the above referenced motions be granted. (Recommendation at 4.) 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 ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 11.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation were filed by either party.
"In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge'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) (stating that "[i]t 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"). Applying this standard, I am satisfied that the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Watanabe is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). I agree that the above referenced motions should be granted. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Watanabe [# 90] dated February 28, 2007, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Bennett, Cushing and Montoya [# 56] is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Defendants Kafati and Brown [# 57] is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED.