Carbajal v. Warner et al
Filing
447
ORDER. The objections stated in Defendant Myrl Serra's Objection To Magistrate Mix's Order 301 are OVERRULED and DENIED; The objections stated in plaintiff's Contemporaneous Objection to the Courts Order 302 are OVERRULED and DENIE D; The plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Contemporaneous Objection to the Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs Contemporaneous Objection to the Courts Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion 325 SHALL BE read as a reply to the defen dants' responses to the plaintiff's objection 302 , and not as a motion; and To the extent the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Contemporaneous Objection to the Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs Contemporaneous Objection to the Courts Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion 325 has been treated as a pending motion on the court's docket, the motion is DENIED as moot. 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-02862-REB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, political subdivision of the State of Colorado, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO
ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Defendant Myrl Serra’s Objection
To Magistrate Mix’s March 7, 2012 Order [#301]1 filed March 21, 2012; (2) the
plaintiff’s Contemporaneous Objection to the Courts Order [DOC #297] [#302] filed
March 22, 2012; and (3) the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and
Contemporaneous Objection to the Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs
Contemporaneous Objection [DOC #302] to the Courts Order [DOC #297] Denying
Plaintiff’s Motion [#325] filed April 13, 2012. The State Defendants filed a
response[#310] to the plaintiff’s objection [#302], and the Delta defendants filed a
response [#311] to the plaintiff’s objection [#302]. The plaintiff filed a reply [#325] to the
defendants’ responses to the plaintiff’s objection [#302]. That reply [#325] also is
1
“[#301]” 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.
docketed as a motion. I overrule the objections and deny the motions.
The objections concern a non-dispositive matter that was referred to the
magistrate judge for resolution. 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.
On March 7, 2012, the magistrate judge entered an order [#297] addressing the
plaintiff’s motion for sanctions [#266]. The objections concern this order [#297]. The
magistrate judge denied the motion as to all defendants except Myrl Serra. The
magistrate judge later conducted two evidentiary hearings to resolve the motion for
sanctions as to Mr. Serra. After conducting the hearings, the magistrate judge entered
an order [#398], filed September 27, 2012, denying the motion for sanctions as to Mr.
Serra.
Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s orders [#297 & #398], the objections, the
responses to the objections, and the other relevant parts of the record, I conclude that
the magistrate judge’s order [#297] is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. I
conclude further that the plaintiff’s motion [#325] properly is read as a reply to the
defendants’ responses to the plaintiff’s objection [#302], and not a new motion
requesting a new type of relief. Because this document [#325] was docketed as a
motion, I deny the motion as moot.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the objections stated in Defendant Myrl Serra’s Objection To
Magistrate Mix’s March 7, 2012 Order [#301] filed March 21, 2012, are OVERRULED
and DENIED;
2. That the objections stated in plaintiff’s Contemporaneous Objection to the
2
Courts Order [DOC #297] [#302] filed March 22, 2012, are OVERRULED and
DENIED;
3. That the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Contemporaneous
Objection to the Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs Contemporaneous Objection
[DOC #302] to the Courts Order [DOC #297] Denying Plaintiff’s Motion [#325] filed
April 13, 2012, SHALL BE read as a reply to the defendants’ responses to the plaintiff’s
objection [#302], and not as a motion; and
4. That to the extent the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and
Contemporaneous Objection to the Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs
Contemporaneous Objection [DOC #302] to the Courts Order [DOC #297] Denying
Plaintiff’s Motion [#325] filed April 13, 2012, has been treated as a pending motion on
the court’s docket, the motion is DENIED as moot.
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?
