Lisco v. State of Colorado Department of Corrections et al

Filing 76

ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 74 filed11/9/2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 65 filed 8/17/2011, is GRANTED. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 75 filed 1 1/9/2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. Defendant Dr. William R. Wrights Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 60 filed 7/19/20011, is GRANTED. Under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c), the claims asserted in the plaintiffsAmended Prisoner Complaint 14 filed 11/2 9/2010, are DISMISSED with prejudice. JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Dr. Wright, M.D., Nurse Serene Beall, O.C. Baker, Ms. Tredway, and Mr. London, against the plaintiff, Gregory Lay Lisco. The defendants are AWARDED their costs. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/27/2012.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02106-REB-BNB
GREGORY LAY LISCO,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. WRIGHT, MD, Medical Provider, Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center,
NURSE SERENE BEALL, Intake Nurse, Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center,
O.C. BAKER, Intake Technician, Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center,
MS. TREDWAY, Case Manager, Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center, and
MR. LONDON, Case Manager, Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) defendant Dr. William R. Wright’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#60]1 filed July 19, 2011; (2) the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings [#65] filed August 17, 2011, which motion was filed by the
all other named defendants; (3) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#74] filed November 9, 2011; and (4) the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [#75] filed November 9, 2011. No objections to either
recommendation have been filed by the parties. Therefore, I review the
recommendations only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration &

1

“[#60]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding no error, much
less plain error, in the magistrate judge’s recommended dispositions, I find and
conclude that recommendations both should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#74] filed
November 9, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#65] filed August 17,
2011, is GRANTED;
3. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#75] filed
November 9, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
4. That defendant Dr. William R. Wright’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings [#60] filed July 19, 2011, is GRANTED;
5. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c), the claims asserted in the plaintiff’s
Amended Prisoner Complaint [#14] filed November 29, 2010, are DISMISSED with
prejudice;
6. That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Dr. Wright,
M.D., Nurse Serene Beall, O.C. Baker, Ms. Tredway, and Mr. London, against the
plaintiff, Gregory Lay Lisco; and

2

This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. In addition, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his
pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007);
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).

2

7. That the defendants are AWARDED their costs, to be taxed by the clerk of
the court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
Dated February 27, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3