Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-D-1020
March 29, 2001
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Dismissal filed September 25, 2000. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland for a recommendation, which was issued on March 6, 2001, and is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, D.C.COLO.LR. 72.4. Defendants have failed, however, to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the recommendation "under any standard [I] deem appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's notes. Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Defendants' argument that there is not statutory or legislative requirement that they pay income tax is without merit, and insufficient to support an order for summary dismissal. Accordingly, it is
Note, this standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
ORDERED that the Recommendation is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Dismissal is DENIED.