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)

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