Kimber v. Hoover et al
ORDER. Defendants Motion to Substitute the United States of America 39 is GRANTED. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) 40 is GRANTED and Plaintiffs claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the Courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 08/17/2009.(sah, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE Civil Case No. 08-cv-02110-LTB-MEH BART KIMBER, Plaintiff, v. TIM HOOVER, RICHARD KAZITS, DEAN KING, TRACY GRANT, and BILL FRANKLE, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ________________________________________________________________________ This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on Defendants' Motion to Substitute the United States of America as the proper party defendant (Doc 39) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc 40). The Recommendation was issued and served on July 29, 2009 (Doc 62). Plaintiff has filed his timely objection to the recommendation (Doc 66 - filed August 10, 2009). I therefore consider the
recommendation de novo in light of the file and record in this case. On de novo review, I conclude that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is correct. Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Substitute the United States of America (Doc 39) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc 40) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims asserted in the Third Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. BY THE COURT: s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock, Judge DATED: August 27, 2009
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?