Frye v. Clements et al

Filing 22

ORDER Overruling the 21 Objection to Continuance filed by Gregory P. Frye, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/29/12. (gmssl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00722-BNB
GREGORY P. FRYE,
Applicant,
v.
TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director CDOC, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO JOHN SUTHERS,
Respondents.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

This matter is before the Court on the “Objection to Continuance” (ECF No. 21)
filed pro se on May 21, 2012, by Applicant, Gregory P. Frye. Mr. Frye specifically
objects to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland’s minute order of May 15, 2012 (ECF No.
20), granting Respondent’s motion for extension of time to file a pre-answer response in
this habeas corpus action.
Mr. Frye is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections
who currently is incarcerated at the Kit Carson Correction Center in Burlington,
Colorado. He has filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the validity of his state court criminal convictions.
On April 26, 2012, Magistrate Judge Boland ordered Respondents to file within
twenty-one days a pre-answer response limited to addressing the affirmative defenses
of timeliness and exhaustion of state court remedies. On May 15, Magistrate Judge
Boland granted Respondents’ motion for an extension of time to file their pre-answer

response. Applicant objects to the extension of time because he believes the fact that
counsel for Respondent is handling several other § 2254 cases pending before this
Court and several cases pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals does not
constitute “good cause.” ECF No. 21 at 2-3.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) a judge may reconsider any pretrial matter
designated to a magistrate judge to hear and determine where it has been shown that
the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court has
reviewed the file and finds that Magistrate Judge Boland’s minute order granting
Respondents’ motion for extension of time is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the “Objection to Continuance” (ECF No. 21) filed pro se on May
21, 2012, by Applicant, Gregory P. Frye, is overruled.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

29th

day of

May

, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

2