Carbajal et al v. Morrissey et al

Filing 208

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 207 Contemporaneous Objection to the Trial Court's Order Denying Counsel [# 200 ]. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 4/24/2014. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03231-REB-KLM
VICTORIA CARBAJAL,
DEAN CARBAJAL, and
LUIS LEAL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ANDREW KEEFER, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION
TO THE TRIAL COURT’S ODER DENYING COUNSEL [#200]
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiffs’ Contemporaneous Objection to the Trial
Court’s Order Denying Counsel [#200] [#207],1 filed April 21, 2014. I overrule the
objection.
Contrary to the implication of the title of the motion, plaintiffs’ objection pertains to
non-dispositive matters that were referred to the magistrate judge for resolution.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), I may modify or set aside any
portion of a magistrate judge’s order which I find to be clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.

1

“[#207]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

Having reviewed the objection, the underlying motion, and the magistrate judge’s
order, I conclude that the magistrate judge’s order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. As the magistrate judge aptly noted, the parties who sought counsel by this
motion, Ms. Carbajal and Mr. Leal, have now been dismissed from this lawsuit, thus
mooting the request. Their assertion that “the need for counsel still exists” is not selfevident, and I have found already that Ms. Carbajal and Mr. Leal have failed to present
any cogent, substantiated argument suggesting that they have meritorious claims in this
matter. (See Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension of Time To File and
Objection to the District Court’s Order [#198] at 2 [#206], filed April 17, 2014.) Given
these circumstances, there was no error – much less clear error – in the magistrate
judge’s disposition of the motion.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the objections stated in Plaintiffs’
Contemporaneous Objection to the Trial Court’s Order Denying Counsel [#200]
[#207], filed April 21, 2014, are OVERRULED.
Dated April 24, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2