Coit v. Zavaras et al

Filing 231

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's Onjection to Minute Order 178 . ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection to Order Denying Motion to Correct Typing Errors and Omissions (ECF No. 196) is OVERRULED. ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Watanabes minute order (ECF No. 178) is AFFIRMED by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 04/19/13. (jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.

12-cv-00609-WYD-MJW

JILL COIT,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, et.al,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO
MINUTE ORDER DOCKET NO. 178

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objection to Minute Order
Docket 1781 (ECF No. 196), filed March 15, 2013. For the reasons stated below,
Plaintiff’s objection is overruled and Magistrate Judge Watanabe’s minute order (ECF
No. 178) is affirmed.
Plaintiff’s objection pertains 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 an order of a magistrate judge which I find to be
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. “An order is clearly erroneous when the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been made.” Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 147 F.R.D. 237, 242 (D. Colo. 1993).
The plaintiff objects to a minute order in which the magistrate judge addressed
the following motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to modify a deadline for discovery (ECF No.
1

I note that Plaintiff also requested an extension of time to file a proper objection. I ruled
on that request in a separate filing. (ECF No. 198).

175); (2) Plaintiff’s motion for U.S. Marshal to provide documentation regarding the
service of Defendant Dussart (ECF No. 174); and (3) Plaintiff’s motion to add excerpts
to discovery (ECF No. 176).
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s objection, I cannot find that Magistrate Judge
Watanabe’s conclusions were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Given the
reasoning set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s minute order, I conclude that the resolution
of these motions is both lawful and appropriate. Therefore, I overrule the Plaintiff’s
objection.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to Order Denying Motion to Correct Typing
Errors and Omissions (ECF No. 196) is OVERRULED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Watanabe’s minute order
(ECF No. 178) is AFFIRMED.
Dated: April 19, 2013
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge

-2-