Case Information
*1 Case 1:03-cv-02293-EWN-OES Document 97 Filed 06/29/05 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Edward W. Nottingham Civil Action No. 03–cv–02293–EWN–OES
ELIZABETH STEINER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONCENTRA INC. a.k.a. CONCENTRA
a.k.a. CONCENTRA M EDICAL CENTERS,
Defendant. ORDER
On September 16, 2004, this court, acting on the recommendation of the assigned United States magistrate judge, entered an order dismissing all claims in this case except the claim of age discrimination against Concentra Inc. The order also permitted plaintiff to file an amended complaint meeting certain specifications. The net effect of the order was that plaintiff would be allowed to proceed on her amended complaint stating an age discrimination claim against Concentra and presenting any new claims which had ripened by virtue of an EEOC right to sue letter issued on or about M ay 17, 2004.
Plaintiff has done nothing which was ordered. Instead, in violation of the well established policy against piecemeal appeals, she filed a notice of appeal. Consequently, the court of *2 Case 1:03-cv-02293-EWN-OES Document 97 Filed 06/29/05 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
appeals ordered plaintiff to get a rule 54(b) certification or to pursue the case to a final judgment in the district court. Plaintiff has done neither. Instead, she continues to tie the case in more and more procedural knots. It is time for this to stop. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. The “Time Sensitive M otion” etc. filed by plaintiff on December 27, 2004 (#92)
is DENIED. The magistrate judge’s recommendation filed January 7, 2005 (to deny the “Time Sensitive M otion” (#94)) is ACCEPTED.
2. Within eleven days from the date of this order plaintiff may file an amended
complaint which complies with this order, the court’s previous order, and the magistrate judge’s order of August 6, 2004 permitting the filing of an amended complaint. If she fails to do so, this court will dismiss what remains of plaintiff’s case, with prejudice, as a sanction for her consistent disobedience to court orders. The appeal document docketed as #85 is DENIED.
3.
Dated this 29 day of June, 2005.
BY THE COURT: s/ Edward W. Nottingham EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM United States District Judge 2