Woods v. Comfort Dental East Aurora et al
ORDER approving and adopting 67 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 29 ) is GRANTED, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 05/24/2012.(wjcsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02759-REB-BNB
COMFORT DENTAL EAST AURORA, a Colorado profit corporation,
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The matter before me is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
[#67]1 filed April 25, 2012. No objections having been filed to the recommendation, I review it
only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418
F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding no such error in the recommended disposition, I find
and conclude that the recommendation should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#67] filed April 25,
2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#29] filed December 30, 2011,
“[#67]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
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 her
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)).
3. That plaintiff’s claims for race and gender discrimination based on receipt of a written
warning from defendant on June 18, 2009, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
4. That judgment SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant Comfort Dental East Aurora, a
Colorado profit corporation, against plaintiff Darlean Woods on plaintiff’s claims for race and sex
discrimination based on receipt of a written warning from defendant on June 18, 2009; provided,
that the judgment as to this claims shall be with prejudice;
5. That judgment also SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant Comfort Dental East
Aurora, a Colorado profit corporation, and former defendants James Parfitt, Matthew Carlson,
Jeffrey Varner, and Richard Doerhoff, individually and in their capacities as supervisors, against
plaintiff Darlean Woods on the other claims asserted in plaintiff’s Complaint [#2], filed
November 11, 2011, as set forth in my Order Adopting Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge ¶ 4 at 2-3 [#17] filed August 26, 2011; and
6. That defendants are AWARDED their costs, to be taxed by the clerk of the court
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
Dated May 24, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
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?