IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 18-cv-02633-PAB-STV ANTHONY PHILIP, Plaintiff, v. ROHAN ELLIS, CONNIE VAUGHAN, and MARK ALLISON, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak filed on October 8, 2019 [Docket No. 56]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See

(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on October 9, 2019. No party has objected to the Recommendation. The copy of the Recommendation that was mailed to plaintiff at his last known address was returned as undeliverable [Docket No. 58]. Although he is required to do so, see D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5(c), plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his current mailing address. Plaintiff, therefore, bears responsibility for not receiving a copy of the Recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah,

(10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (“[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”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 56] is accepted. 2. Defendant Ellis’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 23] is granted. 3. Defendants Vaughan and Allison’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 25] is granted.

4. This case is closed. DATED November 12, 2019. BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

1This 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). 2