Arocho v. Lappin et al

Filing 214

ORDER. The objections set forth in plaintiffs Motion - Statement To Reconsider Appoint of Counsel 209 filed 10/07/2010, are OVERRULED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/04/2010.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 07-cv-02603-REB-KLM NORBERTO PEREZ AROCHO, Plaintiff, v. S. NAFZINGER, Clinical Director, and HARLEY LAPPIN, Federal Bureau of Prison - Director, Defendants. ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. The matter before me is plaintiff's Motion - Statement To Reconsider Appoint of Counsel [#209] filed October 7, 2010, which objects to the magistrate judge's Order [#208], filed September 15, 2010, granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's Motion Requesting Counsel [#206] filed September 13, 2010. I overrule plaintiff's objections and deny the motion to reconsider. Plaintiffs' objections pertain to non-dispositive matters that were 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. Moreover, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have reviewed her motion more liberally than pleadings or papers filed by attorneys. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d

652 (1972); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Having reviewed the magistrate judge's order and the apposite motion, I conclude that the magistrate judge's order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Similarly, I find no basis for granting a motion to reconsider the magistrate judge's order. "Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law." See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). None of these circumstances pertains here. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the objections set forth in plaintiff's Motion Statement To Reconsider Appoint of Counsel [#209] filed October 7, 2010, are OVERRULED. Dated November 4, 2010, 2009, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

2