Arnold v. Denver, Colorado, The City and County of et al
RECOMMENDATION. That 29 Stipulated MOTION to Vacate the Trial Date of December 14, 2009, and Stay all Proceedings for Ninety Days BE GRANTED. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 07/09/2009. (sah, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 08-cv-01342-REB-MEH DESIREE ARNOLD, THE PIT BULL BAND, GEMA MARTINEZ, and ELISHA STURDIVANT, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, DOUG KELLEY, Director of the Division of Animal Control, in his official and individual capacities, RICK MOUTON, Officer, Division of Animal Control, in his official and individual capacities, DAVID ROMERO, Officer, Division of Animal Control, in his official and individual capacities, and MICHAEL GABRIEL, Officer, Denver Police Department, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants. RECOMMENDATION RE: MOTION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On June 30, 2009, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion to Vacate Trial Date of December 14, 2009 and Stay All Proceedings for Ninety Days [docket #29]. Although the motion has not been referred to me for recommendation, I respectfully submit the following information for the District Court's consideration and recommend that the motion be granted.1
Be advised that all parties shall have ten (10) days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party
As stated by the parties in their motion, this Court held a settlement conference at which the parties made significant progress toward resolution of the matter. The parties require additional time and focus toward activities other than litigation that will assist in settlement of the case. Specifically, Plaintiffs' counsel will be drafting proposed changes to Defendant's procedures with respect to the city ordinance regarding pit bulls, and the parties will meet with the Court in further negotiations on August 20, 2009. This Court believes that it would be in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency to vacate the current trial date and grant a temporary stay of the proceedings to allow the parties to pursue possible resolution of the case. It is obviously a difficult process to alter or amend the City of Denver's ordinances, but the undersigned is encouraged after the conference that a resolution short of litigation can be reached. Based on the foregoing I respectfully recommend that the District Court grant the Stipulated Motion to Vacate Trial Date of December 14, 2009 and Stay All Proceedings for Ninety Days [filed June 30, 2009; docket #29]. Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 9th day of July, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/Michael E. Hegarty Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge
from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within ten (10) days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); Niehaus v. Kansas Bar Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 1986). 2
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?