Wojdacz v. Colorado Springs City Police Department et al.

Filing 164

ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 130 is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court; the objections stated in Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Hegarty Recommendations for Defendant Miller and Defendant Penrose Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 149 are OVERRULED; Defendant Penrose-St. Francis Healthcare's Amended Motion To Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings 92 is GRANTED; Defendant Patrick Miller's Amended Motion To Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings 94 is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief, as set forth in the Amended Complaint at 30 19 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; plaintiff's First Claim for Relief, as set forth in the Amended Complaint at 30 19 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as against defendants, Patrick Miller and Penrose St.-Francis Healthcare. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 4/4/13. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01483-REB-MEH
ELIZABETH WOJDACZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER JOHN IRELAND,
PATRICK MILLER,
PENROSE-ST. FRANCIS HEALTHCARE,
GARY LEE NORMAN,
MICHAEL J. DUNCAN, and
CLIFF HUDSON,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [#130],1 filed March 4, 2013; and (2) Plaintiff’s Objections to
Magistrate Hegarty Recommendations for Defendant Miller and Defendant
Penrose Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#149], filed April 1, 2013. I overrule
the objections, approve and adopt the recommendation, and grant the apposite motions
to dismiss.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which objections have been filed. I have considered carefully the
1

“[#130]” 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.

recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw.
In addition, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed her pleadings
and papers more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by attorneys-at-law. 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)).
The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff’s
objections are imponderous and without merit. Plaintiff’s objections do not go to the
substance of the magistrate judge’s recommendation or the arguments advanced by
defendants in support of their motions to dismiss. Instead, plaintiff’s objections consist
of nothing more than her unsubstantiated allegations that this court, the magistrate
judge, and the attorneys for defendants have conspired together to prevent her from
conducting discovery in this matter. Yet, as I found in my Order Denying Plaintiff’s
Opposed Motion To Recuse Federal Judge Robert E. Blackburn ([#162], filed April
3, 2013), plaintiff has failed to substantiate or circumstantiate these assertions, which
are, in fact, baseless.2

2

In addition, the various requests for relief made within the context of these purported objections
are improper procedurally.

2

Thus, 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 [#130], filed
March 4, 2013, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Hegarty
Recommendations for Defendant Miller and Defendant Penrose Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings [#149], filed April 1, 2013, are OVERRULED;
3. That Defendant Penrose-St. Francis Healthcare’s Amended Motion To
Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings [#92], filed November 30, 2012, is
GRANTED;
4. That Defendant Patrick Miller’s Amended Motion To Dismiss and for
Judgment on the Pleadings [#94], filed December 4, 2012, is GRANTED;
5. That plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief, as set forth in the Amended
Complaint at 30 [#19], filed August 2, 2012, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
6. That plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief, as set forth in the Amended
Complaint at 30 [#19], filed August 2, 2012, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
against defendants, Patrick Miller and Penrose St.-Francis Healthcare;
7. That at the time judgment enters, judgment SHALL ENTER on behalf of
defendants, Patrick Miller and Penrose St.-Francis Healthcare, against plaintiff,
Elizabeth Wojdacz, as to the claims asserted against them in this matter; provided, that
the judgment as to plaintiff’s First Claim for Relief shall be with prejudice and the

3

judgment as to plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief shall be without prejudice; and
8. That defendants, Patrick Miller and Penrose St.-Francis Healthcare, are
DROPPED as named parties to this action, and the case caption AMENDED
accordingly.
Dated April 4, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

4