Mathison v. USA et al

Filing 42

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 11 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 29 Motion for Leave, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/10/2015.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03345-RM-KLM
EUGENE H. MATHISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CHRISTOPHER WILSON, D.O.,
RONALD CAMACHO, P.A., M.L.P.,
MARK KELLAR, R.N., HEALTH SERVICES ADMIN.,
D. ALLRED, D.O., CLINICAL DIRECTOR,
GEORGE SANTINI, M.D., and
FIVE JOHN/JANE DOES,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to File a Certificate of Review [#11]1 (the “Motion to Dismiss”) and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File a Surreply [#29] (the “Surreply Motion”). On March 31, 2015,
the Court granted Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s Certificate of Review
and accepted Plaintiff’s Amended Certificate of Review for filing. See Minute Order [#39]
at 1. As a result, the Motion to Dismiss, which is based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a
certificate of review pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-602(3)(a)(II), is moot. Similarly,
Plaintiff’s Surreply Motion is moot because it seeks permission to file a surreply in
opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [#11] and the Surreply Motion
[#29] are DENIED as moot.
Dated: April 10, 2015

1

“[#11]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Minute Order.