DeVaughn v. Solis
ORDER accepting 60 Recommendation as follows: 24 Motion to Dismiss is granted in part, 38 Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff's Motions to Amend Amended Complaint ( 46 and 52 ) are denied. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/30/14.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE
Civil Case No. 14-cv-00139-LTB
UNNAMED BUREAU OF PRISONS GUARD, R.&D., Englewood FCI,
UNNAMED BUREAU OF PRISONS GUARD, R.&D., Englewood FCI, and
This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and
served on December 11, 2014 (Doc 60). Plaintiff has filed written Objections (Doc 61).
Therefore, I have reviewed the file and record in this matter de novo and accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the recommendation is accepted as follows:
Defendant Solis’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc 24) is GRANTED IN PART to the
extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Solis because
they are time-barred, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Gould and C. Hendenskog (Doc 38)
is GRANTED and the claims asserted against Defendants Hendenskog and
Gould are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time-barred.
Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend Amended Complaint (Docs 46 and 52) are
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as
to all Defendants.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
Lewis T. Babcock, Judge
DATED: December 30, 2014
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?