Escobar v. Jones et al

Filing 133

ORDER Plaintiffs objections 131 are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judges Order denying Plaintiffs Motion to Compel 127 is AFFIRMED. by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 8/1/2011. (erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02207-CMA-KLM
JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN S. JONES,
ASSOCIATE WARDEN B. ALLEN,
MAJOR C. HOLDITCH,
CAPTAIN K. FOSTER,
CAPTAIN J. DALTON,
LIEUTENANT MARTZ,
LIEUTENANT CHAVEZ,
SERGEANT A. LUNA,
SERGEANT P. BINDER,
SERGEANT J. WEST,
SERGEANT HARDRICK,
SERGEANT HUDSPETH,
SERGEANT KELEMAN,
C/O D. GALLAGHER,
C/O BRYANT,
C/O A. DALTON,
C/O R. MARTINEZ,
C/O V. PASARO,
NURSE N. WALKER, and
DOCTOR WRIGHT,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING JANUARY 10, 2011 ORDER OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On July 14, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order

denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (Doc. # 127.) Plaintiff filed objections on July 22,
2011. (Doc. # 131.)
Because Plaintiff’s motion to compel is a nondispositive pretrial motion, Plaintiff
must demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was “clearly erroneous or . . .
contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). This standard “requires that the reviewing court
affirm unless it ‘on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.’” Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458,
1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
(1948 ).
Having reviewed the objections, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s
Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections
(Doc. # 131) are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel (Doc. # 127) is AFFIRMED.
DATED: August 01 , 2011
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2