Idstrom v. German May, PC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MARK E. IDSTROM, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 19-2013-JAR-TJJ

GERMAN MAY, P.C. et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER On April 8, 2020, the Court granted the named Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this matter,1 in which Plaintiff Mark Idstrom alleged legal malpractice claims stemming from law firm German May’s representation of him in a state court civil lawsuit. The Court’s April 8 Order also directed Plaintiff to show cause in writing by April 24, 2020, why Defendants John Does 1–10 should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court warned that if no response was filed by that date, this case would be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The April 24, 2020 deadline has passed and seeing no response to the Court’s Order, the John Doe Defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because, as explained in the April 8, 2020 Order, it is “patently obvious” that Plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts alleged against these remaining unidentified Defendants and allowing him an opportunity to amend would be futile.2

1 Doc. 71. 2 See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that John Doe Defendants 1–10 are hereby dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2020 S/ Julie A. Robinson JULIE A. ROBINSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE