Carbajal v. St. Anthony Central Hospital et al

Filing 333

ORDER denying 332 Motion For Leave To File Reply in Support of Denver Defendants' Objections to Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/16/15.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02257-REB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. ANTHONY CENTRAL HOSPITAL, a corporation,
CENTURA HEALTH, a corporation,
APEX, a corporation,
STEPHAN M. SWAN, Physician Assistant, in his individual capacity,
GREGORY J. ENGLAND, Registered Nurse, in his individual capacity,
MARCI L. HANSUE, Registered Nurse, in her individual capacity,
MICHAEL O’NIELL, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his individual
capacity,
JAY LOPEZ, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his individual capacity,
LARRY BLACK, Police Officer for the Denver Police Department, in his individual
capacity,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF DENVER DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Motion For Leave To File Reply in Support of
Denver Defendants’ Objections to Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge [#332],1 filed June 15, 2015. Despite the title of the motion,
defendants seek not merely to file a reply to plaintiff’s response to their objections, but
to submit evidence which they claim is dispositive of plaintiff’s claim of excessive force
1
“[#332]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

against them. I deny the motion.
The law of this circuit clearly provides that “[i]ssues raised for the first time in
objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived.” See
Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996). The arguments and evidence
defendants seek to proffer here are even further removed from admissibility. Having
failed to join these issues or present this evidence2 either by their original motion or by
their initial objections, defendants’ plainly have waived any right to require this court to
consider them at this late juncture.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion For Leave To File Reply in
Support of Denver Defendants’ Objections to Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge [#332], filed June 15, 2015, is denied.
Dated June 16, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2

Although defendants suggest that the evidence supporting these arguments is “new,” they
provide no explanation about why these documents – which purportedly were received from the Denver
Sheriff’s Department itself – were not earlier produced.

2