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, )

Download PDF
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

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?