EDWARDS v. ZAVARAS, 11-cv-00918-LTB-MEH. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20120809b26
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER LEWIS T. BABCOCK, District Judge. This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and served on October 19, 2011 (Doc 32). Plaintiff filed timely written objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation (Doc 38). The parties were given an opportunity to file any additional responses (Doc 43) but neither party has filed same. I have considered Plaintiff's Objections de novo in light of the recommendation, record, and file in this action. Upon such de nov
Summary: ORDER LEWIS T. BABCOCK, District Judge. This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and served on October 19, 2011 (Doc 32). Plaintiff filed timely written objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation (Doc 38). The parties were given an opportunity to file any additional responses (Doc 43) but neither party has filed same. I have considered Plaintiff's Objections de novo in light of the recommendation, record, and file in this action. Upon such de novo..
More
ORDER
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, District Judge.
This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and served on October 19, 2011 (Doc 32). Plaintiff filed timely written objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation (Doc 38). The parties were given an opportunity to file any additional responses (Doc 43) but neither party has filed same.
I have considered Plaintiff's Objections de novo in light of the recommendation, record, and file in this action. Upon such de novo review, I conclude that the recommendation is correct. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the recommendation is accepted as follows:
Plaintiff's first claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DISMISSED and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc 20) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's second and third claims.
Source: Leagle
