Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01758-WYD-CBS.
April 4, 2007
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [# 10], filed October 16, 2006. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer for a recommendation by Order of Reference dated February 12, 2007. Magistrate Judge Shaffer issued a Recommendation on March 19, 2007, that the above referenced motion be granted. (Recommendation at 12.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 12-14.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation were filed by either party.
"In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[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"). Applying this standard, I am satisfied that the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shaffer is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). I agree that the above referenced motion to dismiss should be granted. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shaffer [# 33] dated March 19, 2007, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [# 10] is GRANTED and this civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery [# 25] is DENIED.