Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission v. Bowling
Filing
38
ORDER that Judge Wang's Amended Recommendation (Doc. # 33 ), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7 ) is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Defendants Counterclaim (Doc. # 17 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Counterclaims I (misclassification) and III (wrongful termination False Claims Act) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Counterclaims II (wrongful termination) and V (intentional infliction of emotional distress) are DISMISSED insofar as they are premised on federal law. The remaining counterclaims are: Counterclaim II (state law claim for wrongful termination) Counterclaim IV (defamation) and Counterclaim V (state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress), by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 7/16/2021.(evana, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 20-cv-02942-CMA-NYW
INTERSTATE MEDICAL LICENSURE COMPACT COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
WANDA BOWLING,
Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Amended Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang. (Doc. # 33). Judge Wang recommends that
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) be denied and that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims (Doc. # 17) be granted in part and denied in part.
Neither party objects to Judge Wang’s recommendation. 1
“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate
[judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d
1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It
does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s
1
Judge Wang advised the parties that specific written objections were due within 14 days after
being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. #33, p. 54 n. 22). Despite this
advisement, neither party filed a timely objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation.
factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party
objects to those findings”).
Applying this standard, I am satisfied that Judge Wang’s Amended
Recommendation is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Judge Wang’s Amended
Recommendation (Doc. # 33), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
Defendant’s Counterclaim (Doc. # 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Counterclaims I (misclassification) and III (wrongful termination – False Claims Act) are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Counterclaims II (wrongful termination) and V
(intentional infliction of emotional distress) are DISMISSED insofar as they are premised
on federal law. The remaining counterclaims are: Counterclaim II (state law claim for
wrongful termination) Counterclaim IV (defamation) and Counterclaim V (state law claim
for intentional infliction of emotional distress).
DATED: July 16, 2021
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
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?