Sayed v. Tafoya et al

Filing 72

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 70 October 29, 2014 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. It is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 61 ) be GRANTED. Plaintiff's objection (Doc. # 71 ) is OVERRULED. Plaintiff has 21 days following the date of this Order to file a second amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely secondamended complaint, the case will be dismissed with prejudice. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/05/2014. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02961-CMA-MJW
HAZHAR A. SAYED,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERTA BROMAN, an individual,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 29, 2014
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the October 29, 2014 Recommendation
by United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe that Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. # 61) be granted. (Doc. # 70.) The Recommendation is incorporated
herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On
November 7, 2014, Plaintiff Hazhar Sayed filed an objection to the Recommendation.
(Doc. # 71.)
“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.
Judge Watanabe recommended that Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed
for failure to state a claim, but that this Court allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint to
cure its defects. Nonetheless, Plaintiff objected to the recommendation, reiterating
arguments that were properly before Magistrate Judge Watanabe at the time his
Recommendation issued. (Doc. # 71.) 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. This Court agrees with Judge Watanabe that Plaintiff may be able
to state a claim if he provides additional facts and believes it would be helpful to the
parties and this Court to have a more clearly articulated claim.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 71) is
OVERRULED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Michael J. Watanabe (Doc. # 70) 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. # 61) be
GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has 21 days following the date of this
Order to file a second amended complaint. In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff

2

shall include greater detail about (1) his dental diagnoses and symptoms, (2) the
treatment that has been recommended, and (3) the need for immediate treatment
and the consequences of not receiving it. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely second
amended complaint, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
DATED: December

05 , 2014
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3