IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 21-cv-1205-WJM-NYW SETH ADAM THIRSK,

Plaintiff,

v.

BILL ELDER and CY GILLESPIE,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING MARCH 10, 2022 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the March 10, 2022 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 75), that Defendants’ Combined Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 6) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Response to Proposed Amendments (ECF No. 37) be granted; that Plaintiff Seth Adam Thirsk’s Claims be dismissed without prejudice; and to the extent that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 27) and Supplement (ECF No. 33) could be construed as a motion to amend, that motion 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. 75 at 33 n.15.) 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. 75) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Defendants’ Combined Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 6) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Response to Proposed Amendments (ECF No. 37) are GRANTED; (3) Plaintiff’s Claims are DISMISSED without prejudice;

(4) To the extent that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 27) and Supplement (ECF No. 33) could be construed as a motion to amend, that motion is DENIED; and (5) Should Plaintiff wish to file an amended complaint, he may file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint by April 11, 2022. Dated this 28th day of March, 2022. BY WHE URT: William J. Martinez United States District Judge