Dowling v. Mountain States Line Constructors Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee

Filing 78

AMENDED ORDER re: 76 Order on Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court. Reason for amendment - This order is amended to correct a clerical error in the previously entered Order 76 filed June 20, 2012. Footnote 3 of that order has been deleted. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/27/12. (mjgsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-02697-REB-KMT
THERESA L. DOWLING,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOUNTAIN STATES LINE CONSTRUCTORS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND
TRAINING COMMITTEE,
Defendant.
AMENDED ORDER1
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion To Reconsider Order of
Magistrate Judges [sic] Decision to District Court Judge [#73]2 filed Jun 18, 2012. I
deny the motion.3
Plaintiff’s motion pertains to non-dispositive matters that were referred to the
magistrate judge for resolution. Pursuant to 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.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have reviewed her filings more liberally than

1

This order is amended to correct a clerical error in the previously entered Order [#76] filed June
20, 2012. Footnote 3 of that order has been deleted. No further changes, and no substantive changes,
are worked by the entry of this amendment.
2

“[#73]” 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.
3
Although plaintiff styles her motion as “unopposed,” there is nothing therein to suggest that she
sought or obtained defendant’s agreement to the relief requested therein. Regardless, I exercise my
discretion pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C. to rule on the motion without awaiting a response.

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).
I have 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.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion To
Reconsider Order of Magistrate Judges [sic] Decision to District Court Judge [#73]
filed Jun 18, 2012, is DENIED.
Dated June 27, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2