IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 25-cv-02673-PAB-SBP

CHALRES K. ASHLEY, JR.

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, TAMARA NILES, in her official capacity, and ROBERT KLLERMAN,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 37]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 37; see also

(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on November 13, 2025. No party has objected to 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) (“It 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.”' 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 that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 37] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Robert Kellerman [Docket No. 29] is DENIED as moot. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Correct Clerical Error in Docket Entry #24 [Docket No. 30] is DENIED as moot. It is further ORDERED that defendant Robert Kellerman’s Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Entry of Default [Docket No. 38] is DENIED as moot. DATED December 3, 2025. BY THE COURT: ia of PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

' 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).