Lilly v. Hartley et al
Filing
85
ORDER denying 73 Response and Motion To Object To the Defendants Motion for Leave To File Answer To Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint Out of Time and for the Request To Appoint Counsel for the Plaintiff as Soon as this Honorable Court Could Provide. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/6/13. (kfinn, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02738-REB-MEH
CURTIS L. LILLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MR. JASON FASSLER,
MR. ROBERT BEAUMONT,
Defendants.
ORDER
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the plaintiff’s Response and Motion To Object To
the Defendants Motion for Leave To File Answer To Plaintiffs Second Amended
Complaint Out of Time and for the Request To Appoint Counsel for the Plaintiff as
Soon as this Honorable Court Could Provide [#73]1 filed May 29, 2012. I deny the
motion.
On April 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint [#68]. On
May 16, 2012, the defendants filed a motion [#69] to file their answer to the second
amended complaint out of time. The defendants describe in their motion circumstances
which caused the deadline for filing an answer to be mis-calendared by counsel for the
defendants. On May 17, 2012, the magistrate judge entered an order [#72] granting the
1
“[#73]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
defendants’ motion. The plaintiff’s present motion was filed on May 29, 2012. It is not
clear if the plaintiff intends his present motion [#73] as a response to the defendants’
motion [#69] or as an objection, under FED. R. CIV. P. 72, to the order [#72] of the
magistrate judge.
Under D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C., the magistrate judge was authorized to rule on
the defendants’ motion without awaiting a response from the plaintiff. Reading the
plaintiffs’ present motion [#73] as a response to the defendants’ motion [#69], I find that
the plaintiff presents no viable challenge to the relief sought by the defendants and
granted by the magistrate judge. Nothing in the plaintiff’s motion [#73] demonstrates
that the plaintiff has suffered any prejudice – let alone irreparable prejudice – as a result
of the belated filing of the defendants’ answer, and there is no showing of any other
valid reason to deny the relief sought by the defendants. Further, the plaintiff does not
present an arguable basis for any reconsideration of the ruling by the magistrate judge.
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), I may modify or set aside
any portion of a magistrate judge’s order which I find to be clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. Reading the plaintiff’s motion as an objection to the order [#72] of the magistrate
judge, I conclude there is no basis for an objection. Nothing in the order of the
magistrate judge is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Response and Motion To
Object To the Defendants Motion for Leave To File Answer To Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint Out of Time and for the Request To Appoint Counsel for the
2
Plaintiff as Soon as this Honorable Court Could Provide [#73] filed May 29, 2012, is
DENIED.
Dated March 6, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
