Samuels v. Davis et al

Filing 63

ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 57 is correct. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 15 is granted and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 10 is dismissed with prejudice, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/22/2015. (ebuch)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE Civil Case No. 14-cv-02588-LTB-KLM KENDRICK SAMUELS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN L. DAVIS, PATRICIA BALDWIN, KERRI BARONI, RICHARD FISHER, BRADLEY JOHNSON, KERRY BYNES, THOMAS C. FISHER, M.D., CHRISTINE STURGEON, N.P., VALERIE EGLEY, R.N., BETTY KASPAR, R.N., AMY KAMMERZELL, R.N., MEGGAN EGLINTON, JEFFREY HANSEN, NANCY DAVIS, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ________________________________________________________________________ The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc 15) be granted and that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc 10) be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff has filed specific written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. The Defendants Warden Davis, Baldwin, Baroni, Fisher, Johnson, Bynes, Sturgeon, Kaspar, Kammerzell, Eglinton, Hansen, and Nancy Davis have filed their response to the Plaintiff’s objections. Defendant Thomas C. Fisher, M.D., has filed his 1 independent response to the Plaintiff’s objections. Finally, Plaintiff has filed his reply in support of his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation of dismissal. Accordingly, I have reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation de novo in light of the file and record in this case. On de novo review, I conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is correct. Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc 15) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc 10) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. BY THE COURT: s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock, Judge DATED: June 22, 2015 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?