IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02224-WJM-CBS

TERENCE J. HANKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN E. HUSBAND, Individually and as Manager [of the] Little Snake Resource Area, 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, and

AXIS STEEL, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND CLOSING CASE

This matter is before the Court on the June 5, 2012 Recommendation (ECF No.

63) by United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer that Defendant John Husband’s

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24) be granted, that Defendant Bureau of Land

Management’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 35) be granted, and that Defendant Axis

Steel’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) be

granted. 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 fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF

No. 63 at 15-16.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation were filed by either party despite the fact that well in excess of

fourteen days have passed. “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may

Case 1:11-cv-02224-WJM-CBS Document 64 Filed 07/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

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”). 

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s thorough and comprehensive

analyses and recommendations are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face

of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the

Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the

findings and conclusions of this Court.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s Recommendation (ECF No. 63) is ADOPTED;

2. Defendant Husband’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED;

3. All claims against Defendant Husband are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

for lack of jurisdiction;

4. Defendant Axis Steel’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED; 

5. All claims against Defendant Axis Steel are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

6. Defendant Bureau of Land Management’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 35) is

GRANTED; 

7. All claims against Defendant Bureau of Land Management are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction; and

Case 1:11-cv-02224-WJM-CBS Document 64 Filed 07/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

8. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this

action.

Dated this 5 day of July, 2012. th

BY THE COURT:

 

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02224-WJM-CBS Document 64 Filed 07/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3