Estate of Jimma Pal Reat et al v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 153

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 149 the Stipulated Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Vacate and Reset Combined Trial Preparation Conference/Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial. Initial expert designation due by 5/30/2014. Rebut tal expert designation due by 6/27/2014. Discovery due by 7/18/2014. Dispositive Motions due by 8/15/2014. This Court recommends that the Trial Preparation Conference/Final Pretrial Conference and eight-day jury trial be vacated and reset as Judge Blackburn's calendar permits. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 3/7/2014. (mehcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv-02531-REB-MEH ESTATE OF JIMMA PAL REAT, JAMES PAL REAT, REBECCA AWOK DIAG, RAN PAL, CHANGKUOTH PAL, and JOSEPH KOLONG, Plaintiffs, v. JUAN JESUS RODRIGUEZ, and CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendants. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge. The parties’ Stipulated Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Vacate and Reset Combined Trial Preparation Conference / Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial [filed March 6, 2014; docket # 149] is granted in part and denied in part as follows. For good cause shown, this Court ORDERS that Paragraph 9 of the Scheduling Order [docket # 120] shall be modified as follows: Initial expert designation: Rebuttal expert designation: Discovery cutoff: Dispositive motions deadline: May 30, 2014 June 27, 2014 July 18, 2014 August 15, 2014 In addition, this Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that the combined Trial Preparation Conference and Final Pretrial Conference set for June 13, 2014, and the eight-day trial set to begin June 30, 2014, [docket # 119] be vacated and reset as Judge Blackburn’s calendar permits.1 1 Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is Dated and entered this 7th day of March, 2014, in Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); Niehaus v. Kansas Bar Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 1986). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?