Selhime v. Carlson et al

Filing 78

ORDER affirming and adopting 74 Report and Recommendation;granting 32 Motion to Dismiss; granting 39 Motion to Dismiss; granting 55 Motion to Dismiss; granting 62 Motion to Dismiss; granting 65 Motion to Dismiss. Complaint DIMISSED against all defendants. by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 2/19/14.(rbjcd, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge R. Brooke Jackson Civil Action No. 12-cv-02876-RBJ-CBS ERNEST SELHIME, Plaintiff, v. ERIC C. CARLSON, Medical Doctor, JACOB F. PATTERSON, Medical Doctor, DANNY ENGLUND, Physician’s Assistant, ROYAL HAVENS, Physician’s Assistant, SUSAN M. TIONA, Medical Doctor, MARY GRIEB, Registered Nurse, MARK WIENPAHL, Medical Doctor, NOVA WALKER, Registered Nurse, K.K. Unknown Name, Nurse Initials, and ST. THOMAS MORE HOSPITAL, Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on the November 12, 2013 Recommendation by Magistrate Craig B. Shaffer [Doc. #74] that all pending motions to dismiss be granted. The following defendants have pending motions to dismiss: St. Thomas More Hospital [Doc. #32]; Ms. Grieb, Dr. Wienpahl, and Ms. Walker [Doc. #39]; Mr. Englund and Mr. Havens [Doc. #55]; Dr. Carlson [Doc. #62]; and Drs. Patterson and Tiona [Doc. #65]. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. [Doc. #74 at 25]. Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s Recommendation were 1 filed by either party. “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It 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.”)). The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning the above defendants’ motions to dismiss and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Shaffer’s remarkably thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations are correct. “[T]here is no clear error on the face of the record . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 note of advisory committee on rules. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of The United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Order It is ordered that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. # 74] be AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that each of the Motions to Dismiss [Docs. #32, 39, 55, 62, 65] be GRANTED and that the Complaint be DIMISSED as against all defendants. DATED this 19th day of February, 2014. BY THE COURT: ___________________________________ R. Brooke Jackson United States District Judge 2

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?