Molinapalma v. Hughes et al
Filing
38
ORDER ADOPTING NOVEMBER 3, 2016 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Defendants Cullyford's, Massenburg's, and Blatnick's Motion to Dismiss 24 is DENIED; The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 34 is ADOPTED in itsentirety. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Wise and Hughes are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. By Judge William J. Martinez on 11/28/16. (kfinn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 15-cv-2377-WJM-KMT
NICHOLAS MOLINAPALMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA HUGHES, in her official capacity as medical provider,
TINA CULLYFORD, in her official capacity as medical provider,
ALVIN MASSENBURG, in his official capacity as medical provider,
NICOLE BLATNICK, in her official capacity as medical provider, and
WILLIAM WISE, in his official capacity as medical provider,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING NOVEMBER 3, 2016 RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the November 3, 2016 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No.
34) that Defendants Cullyford’s, Massenburg’s, and Bltanick’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 24) be denied, and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Wise and Hughes be
dismissed without prejudice. 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. (ECF
No. 34 at 9.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been received.
The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and
sound, and that there is no clear error on the f ace of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991)
(“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report
under any standard it deems appropriate.”).
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)
The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;
(2)
Defendants Cullyford’s, Massenburg’s, and Blatnick’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 24) is DENIED; and
(3)
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Wise and Hughes are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated this 28th day of November, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
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?