From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lisco v. Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Feb 27, 2012
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02106-REB-BNB (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 10-cv-02106-REB-BNB

02-27-2012

GREGORY LAY LISCO, Plaintiff, v. DR. WRIGHT, MD, Medical Provider, Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center, NURSE SERENE BEALL, Intake Nurse, Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center, O.C. BAKER, Intake Technician, Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center, MS. TREDWAY, Case Manager, Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center, and MR. LONDON, Case Manager, Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center, Defendants.


Judge Robert E. Blackburn


ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Blackburn, J.

This matter is before me on the following: (1) defendant Dr. William R. Wright's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#60] filed July 19, 2011; (2) the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#65] filed August 17, 2011, which motion was filed by the all other named defendants; (3) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#74] filed November 9, 2011; and (4) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#75] filed November 9, 2011. No objections to either recommendation have been filed by the parties. Therefore, I review the recommendations only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge's recommended dispositions, I find and conclude that recommendations both should be approved and adopted. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

"[#60]" 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 order.

This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. Morales-Fernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. In addition, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).
--------

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#74] filed November 9, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#65] filed August 17, 2011, is GRANTED;

3. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#75] filed November 9, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;

4. That defendant Dr. William R. Wright's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [#60] filed July 19, 2011, is GRANTED;

5. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c), the claims asserted in the plaintiff's Amended Prisoner Complaint [#14] filed November 29, 2010, are DISMISSED with prejudice;

6. That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Dr. Wright, M.D., Nurse Serene Beall, O.C. Baker, Ms. Tredway, and Mr. London, against the plaintiff, Gregory Lay Lisco; and

7. That the defendants are AWARDED their costs, to be taxed by the clerk of the court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

Dated February 27, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT

______________________

Robert E. Blackburn

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Lisco v. Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Feb 27, 2012
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02106-REB-BNB (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2012)
Case details for

Lisco v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY LAY LISCO, Plaintiff, v. DR. WRIGHT, MD, Medical Provider…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Feb 27, 2012

Citations

Civil Case No. 10-cv-02106-REB-BNB (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2012)