Bomprezzi v. Hoffman et al

Filing 44

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 37 May 6, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge: Defendant's 17 Motion to Dismiss is denied. Plaintiffs objection 41 is overruled. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 06/02/2014. (athom, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 13-cv-02085-CMA-BNB MEL BOMPREZZI, Plaintiff, v. GRAHAM HOFFMAN, Dr., JULIE MEEKER, Dr., LISA TOEPP, Dr., POUNDS, Dr., and DEQUARDO, Dr., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAY 6, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 13.) On May 6, 2014, Judge Boland issued a Recommendation, advising the Court to deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 17.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Id. at 5.) Despite this advisement, Defendants have filed no objection to Magistrate Judge Boland’s Recommendation. 1 AIn the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’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) (observing that A[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@)). Having reviewed the Recommendation, the Court discerns no clear error on the face of the record and finds that Judge Boland=s reasoning is sound. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (Doc. # 37) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 17) is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 41) is OVERRULED. DATED: June 02 , 2014 BY THE COURT: ________________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge 1 Plaintiff filed an objection (Doc. # 41); however, because Judge Boland recommends the Court deny Defendants’ motion, which is a favorable ruling for Plaintiff, the Court will not address those objections. 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?