Plummer v. McDermott et al

Filing 74

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 71 Report and Recommendations, and granting 40 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 2/18/14. Plaintiff's objection 73 is overruled. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00440-CMA-MJW
RONALD PLUMMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
McDERMOTT, Hospital Administrator,
ALLRED, Clinical Director, and
CINK, Mid-Level Provider,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JUNE 11, 2013
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 5.) On January 24, 2014,
Judge Watanabe issued a Recommendation, advising that “Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment [(Doc. # 40)] be granted, and this case be dismissed without
prejudice based upon the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior
to bringing this action.” (Doc. # 71 at 6.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an objection to Judge
Watanabe’s Recommendation (Doc. # 73).
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge “determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected
to.” In conducting its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the

recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
In the instant case, Plaintiff does not “properly object[]” to any part of the
Recommendation. Instead, he references a response brief he “is filing” to the
Recommendation, but no such brief was attached. In short, Plaintiff has advanced no
substantive argument or objection in reaction to the Recommendation within the time
period he had for filing such objections. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a
de novo review of this matter, including reviewing all relevant pleadings, the
Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s objection thereto. Based on this de novo review, the
Court concludes that Judge Watanabe’s Recommendation is correct and is not called
into question by Plaintiff’s objection.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 73) is
OVERRULED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Michael J. Watanabe (Doc. # 71) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of
this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the underlying Motion (Doc. # 40) is GRANTED and
the claims against Defendant are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED: February 18, 2014
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
2