Magluta v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 29

ORDER Accepting 26 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix; Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 22 is GRANTED and Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint is ACCEPTED as filed and the Clerk of the Court shall docket the Third Amended Complaint as a separate docket entry; and Defendants Unopposed Motion to Modify Deadlines to Respond to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint 28 is GRANTED. It is ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 04/11/2016.(cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02203-RM-KLM
SALVADOR MAGLUTA,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
CHARLES DANIELS, Warden at U.S.P. Florence,
THERESA NEHLS, Nurse Practitioner, F.C.C. Florence,
DAVID ALLRED, Clinical Director, F.C.C. Florence,
LISA MCDERMOTT, A.H.S.A., F.C.C. Florence,
F.N.U. SANTINI,
F.N.U. WISE, and
JOHN DOES, BOP Staff Florence,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court on the following matters:
(1) the Recommendation and Order of United States Magistrate Judge (the
“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 26), recommending granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Amend”) (ECF No. 22), which is unopposed
by Defendants; and
(2) Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Modify Deadlines to Respond to Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Modify”) (ECF No. 28), seeking relief from
responding to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12) and leave to
coordinate the date in which Defendants’ answers or responses to Plaintiff’s Third

Amended Complaint would be due with the date in which the new defendants’1 answers
or responses to the Third Amended Complaint would be due, in the event the Court
accepts the Recommendation and grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within
fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. The time for any objection
has not run, but the Court finds the Recommendation should be accepted as to the Motion to
Amend because: (1) the Motion to Amend is unopposed by Defendants; (2) the Court has
conducted a de novo review of the Motion to Amend and independently finds leave to amend
should be granted; and (3) Defendants’ Motion to Modify appears to indicate no objection to the
Recommendation will be filed.
As for Defendants’ Motion to Modify, the Court finds the purpose of the FED. R. CIV. P. 1
would be served with a consolidated response date to the Third Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) The Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is ACCEPTED as an order of this Court;
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22) is
GRANTED;
(3) Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is ACCEPTED as filed and the Clerk of the
Court shall docket the Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22-3) as a separate
docket entry; and

1

Added with the Third Amended Complaint.
2

(4) Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Modify Deadlines to Respond to Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED. Defendants’ answers or
responses to the Third Amended Complaint shall be due the same date that the new
Defendants’ (N. Kimble and Nixon Roberts, DDS) answers or responses to the Third
Amended Complaint are due, as computed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.
DATED this 11th day of April, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

3