Buy This Entire Record For
Selhime v. Carlson
United States District Court, D. Colorado
February 19, 2014
ERNEST SELHIME, Plaintiff,
ERIC C. CARLSON, Medical Doctor, JACOB F. PATTERSON, Medical Doctor, DANNY ENGLUND, Physician's Assistant, ROYAL HAVENS, Physician's Assistant, SUSAN M. TIONA, Medical Doctor, MARY GRIEB, Registered Nurse, MARK WIENPAHL, Medical Doctor, NOVA WALKER, Registered Nurse, K.K. Unknown Name, Nurse Initials, and ST. THOMAS MORE HOSPITAL, Defendants.
R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the November 12, 2013 Recommendation by Magistrate Craig B. Shaffer [Doc. #74] that all pending motions to dismiss be granted. The following defendants have pending motions to dismiss: St. Thomas More Hospital [Doc. #32]; Ms. Grieb, Dr. Wienpahl, and Ms. Walker [Doc. #39]; Mr. Englund and Mr. Havens [Doc. #55]; Dr. Carlson [Doc. #62]; and Drs. Patterson and Tiona [Doc. #65]. 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. [Doc. #74 at 25]. Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Recommendation were filed by either party. "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) (citing 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 factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.")).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning the above defendants' motions to dismiss and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Shaffer's remarkably thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations are correct. "[T]here is no clear error on the face of the record...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 note of advisory committee on rules. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of The United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
It is ordered that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Doc. # 74] be AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that each of the Motions to Dismiss [Docs. #32, 39, 55, 62, 65] be GRANTED and ...