Faragalla v. Douglas County School District et al

Filing 235

ORDER. The objection stated in the 168 plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff Second Motion To Compel or Objection to the Magistrates Order on Plaintiffs Second Motion to Compel is OVERRULED AND DENIED. The plaintiffs Motion for a Ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff Second Motion To Compel or Objection to the Magistrates Order onPlaintiffs Second Motion to Compel 231 is DENIED as moot by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 04/13/2009.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 07-cv-02584-REB-BNB ABEER FARAGALLA, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DIRSTRICT [sic] RE1 "DCSD," CEREBRAL PALSY OF COLORADO "CP," DOUGLAS COUNTY EDUCATION FOUNDATION," and DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION "BOE," Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING RULE 72 OBJECTION TO ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. This matter is before me on the plaintiff's (1) Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff Second Motion To Compel or Objection to the Magistrate's Order on Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel [#168]1 filed January 28, 2009; and (2) the plaintiff's Motion for a Ruling on the "Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff Second Motion To Compel or Objection to the Magistrate's Order on Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel" [#231] filed April 10, 2009. The defendants filed a response [#180] to the Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff Second Motion To Compel or Objection to the Magistrate's Order on Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel [#168]. I overrule the objection, and I deny the motion for ruling as moot.

"[#168]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

1

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." I have reviewed the order [#164] of Magistrate Judge Boland that is challenged by the plaintiff, as well as the other relevant portions of the record. Nothing in the plaintiff's objection tends to show that Magistrate Judge Boland's order [#164] is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the objection stated in the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff Second Motion To Compel or Objection to the Magistrate's Order on Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel [#168] filed January 28, 2009, is OVERRULED AND DENIED; and; 2. That to the extent the plaintiff seeks reconsideration of her second motion to compel as an alternative to her assertion of her objection to the magistrate judge's order, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED as moot; and 3. That the plaintiff's Motion for a Ruling on the "Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff Second Motion To Compel or Objection to the Magistrate's Order on Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel" [#231] filed April 10, 2009, is DENIED as moot. Dated April 13, 2009, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

2