IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 18–cv–01525–RM–KMT

RYAN GALLAGHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NSA-NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the August 20, 2020, Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 98) to grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 95) as to the remaining claim in this case. 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. 98 at pages 18- 19.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by any party and the time to do so has expired. (See generally Dkt.) The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Tafoya’s analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record.1 See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory

1 The Court notes that the Recommendation is largely built upon Defendant’s motion. Nonetheless, the Court believes the analysis to be overall sound; particularly where Plaintiff filed no response to the motion challenging any aspect of Defendant’s facts and analysis. committee’s note (“When no timely objection 1s 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) (“Tn the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”). The Recommendation 1s, therefore, adopted as an order of this Court. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court: (1) ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Recommendation of United States Magistrate (ECF No. 98) in its entirety; (2) GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 95); (3) DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's Claim One; and (4) DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in accordance with this Order and the Order of October 15, 2019 (ECF No. 92). DATED this 14th day of September, 2020. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge