Tivis v. Stock et al

Filing 195

ORDER Accepting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. Ordered that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 189] isACCEPTED. Ordered that the Partial Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 155] filed by defendants Beverly Dowis, Nico le Wilson, and Meghan Reed is granted. Plaintiff's second, fifth, and sixth claims for relief are dismissed with prejudice. Ordered that all claims against defendants Nicole Wilson, Meghan Reed, and Paula Frantz are dismissed with prejudice by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 09/08/14.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02050-PAB-KMT
MICHAEL TIVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEVERLY DOWIS, in her individual and official capacity as Health Service
Administrator for SCF,
NICOLE WILSON, in her individual capacity,
DR. PAULA FRANTZ, in her individual and official capacity as Chief Medical Officer for
the Colorado Department of Corrections,
MEGHAN REED, in her individual capacity and official capacity as ADA Inmate
Coordinator for the State of Colorado,
PHYSICIAN HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., d/b/a Correctional Health Partners, a
Colorado corporation, and
DR. STEVEN KREBS, in his individual capacity.
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on August 11, 2014 [Docket No. 189]. The
Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
Recommendation was served on August 11, 2014. The Court granted plaintiff an
extension until September 4, 2014 to file objections [Docket No. 194]. No party has
objected to the Recommendation.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927

F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)
(“[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”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the
Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has
concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 189] is
ACCEPTED.
2. The Partial Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 155] filed by defendants Beverly
Dowis, Nicole Wilson, and Meghan Reed is granted. Plaintiff’s second, fifth, and sixth
claims for relief are dismissed with prejudice.
3. All claims against defendants Nicole Wilson, Meghan Reed, and Paula Frantz
are dismissed with prejudice.

1

This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
2

DATED September 8, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3