Opinion
Civil case no. 11-cv-03078-RM-BNB
06-27-2014
DARLENE GRIFFITH, Plaintiff, v. CARMEN A. MEYER, N.P., PAULA FRANTZ, chief medical officer, LOUIS CABILING, M.D., JUDY BRIZENDINE, H.S.A., DIANE TORRES, N.P., THOMAS L. PULK, M.D., HOPE C. BEATTE, PHD, STEVEN GALLEGOS, P.A., SUSAN TIONA, M.D., ROY HAVENS, P.A., ERICA WILSON, pharmacist, Defendants.
Judge Raymond P. Moore
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the May 22, 2013 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 119) that the following defense motions to dismiss be granted: (1) Colorado Department of Corrections Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 72); (2) Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint from Defendants Cabiling and Brizendine (ECF No. 75); (3) Motion to Dismiss from Defendant Roy Havens (ECF No. 101); and (4) Colorado Department of Corrections Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 109). The Recommendation also recommends denial of Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default Judgment (ECF No. 117). In doing so, the Recommendation, if adopted, resolves all remaining claims at issue in this prisoner litigation. 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. 119 at 10, n.2.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been filed by either party.
Plaintiff did file a Motion for Extension of Time on June 5, 2013, asking for an extension of her time to respond to the Recommendation, up to an including July 5, 2013. (ECF No. 123.) By virtue of this action, she demonstrated her awareness of the Recommendation and the need to file timely objections. The Motion for Extension of Time was granted by this Court on June 6, 2013. (ECF No. 125.) However, no objections were subsequently filed by Plaintiff, either by or after the July extension deadline.
On January 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address. (ECF No. 128.) Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting copies of all proceedings, motions, lawyers' addresses for this matter, stating that all the copies she previously made were "lost, stolen, taken, shredded." (ECF No. 127 at 1.) She stated that she was transferred to a different justice center, and that this move resulted in the loss of her paperwork. She also filed additional notices of address change in March and April 2014. In none of these pleadings did Plaintiff submit objections to Judge Boland's analysis or reading of the facts in this case. In none did she reference her earlier request for an extension of time. The Court finds, as stated above, that no objections have been filed.
The Court concludes that Judge Boland's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face 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."). The Recommendation is, therefore, adopted.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 119) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Nos. 72, 75, 101, 109) are GRANTED; (3) Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default (ECF No. 117) is DENIED; (4) Plaintiff's Motion Requesting a Copy of All Proceedings (ECF No. 127) is DENIED; and (5) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims.
BY THE COURT:
__________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge