Gabriel v. Colorado Mountain Medical, P.C. et al, No. 1:2013cv02261 - Document 55 (D. Colo. 2014)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Clerk in favor of Colorado Mountain Medical PC, Brooks Bock against Cheryl Gabriel re: 54 Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Reconsider. By Clerk on 12/23/2014. (alowe)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gabriel v. Colorado Mountain Medical, P.C. et al Doc. 55 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-02261-REB-CBS CHERI GABRIEL Plaintiff v. COLORADO MOUNTAIN MEDICAL, P.C., AND DR. BROOKS BOCK Defendant FINAL JUDGMENT In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered. Pursuant to the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider [#54] of Judge Robert E. Blackburn entered on December 23, 2014 it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s claim for interference with her right to reinstatement following FMLA leave in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment with prejudice is entered on behalf of defendants, Colorado Mountain Medical, P.C., and Dr. Brooks Bock, and against plaintiff, Cheri Gabriel, on plaintiff’s claim for interference with her right to reinstatement following FMLA leave in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). It is FURTHER ORDERED that in accordance with the Order Dismissing All Claims Except the Claim for an FMLA Interference [#36], filed June 4, 2014 that judgment Dockets.Justia.com with prejudice is also entered on behalf of defendants, Colorado Mountain Medical, P.C., and Dr. Brooks Bock, and against plaintiff, Cheri Gabriel, on all other claims previously asserted in this lawsuit. It is FURTHER ORDERED that 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 at Denver, Colorado this 23rd day of November, 2014. FOR THE COURT: JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK By: s/ A. Lowe A. Lowe Deputy Clerk
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
