IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 18-cv-0866-WJM-NRN ENRIQUE PARRA JR., Plaintiff, v. KEITH STAMBAUGH, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING AUGUST 8, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. #85) ______________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the August 8, 2019 Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. #85) (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 92), wherein the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 85) be denied. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See

(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. 92 at 6.) 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,

(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. 92) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 85) is DENIED.

Dated this 4" day of September, 2019. BY iy UU William J. in€gz United States District Judge