Carbajal et al v. Morrissey et al

Filing 221

ORDER Overruling 215 Objections to Nondispositive Order of Magistrate Judge. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/24/2014.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03231-REB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW KEEFER, Deputy Sheriff for the Denver Detention Center, in his individual
capacity,
Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO
NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff’s Contemporaneous Objection to the [sic]
Magistrate Kristin Mix’s Unfair and Unreasonable Denial of Leave To Join Parties
and Amend Pleadings and Motion for Modification of the Scheduling Order
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 [#215],1 filed May 20, 2014. I overrule the objection.
Plaintiff’s 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.
Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s order, I conclude that the order of the
magistrate judge is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff complains that in
1

“[#215]” 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.

setting other pretrial deadlines, the magistrate judge nevertheless did not provide for
further opportunities to amend the pleadings.
There is nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to law in this conclusion. As the
magistrate judge recognized, this case has been pending for some 18 months now.
Plaintiff already has been permitted leave to amend his original complaint twice.
Plaintiff’s objection provides not even a hint that he has additional, potentially viable
claims that he has previously been unable to attempt to bring forward in this case.
Thus, despite plaintiff’s protestations to the contrary, he has been afforded a fair and
adequate opportunity to amend and to assert claims in this case. I perceive nothing
suggesting that justice requires yet further opportunity for amendment of the pleadings
in this matter.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the objections stated in Plaintiff’s
Contemporaneous Objection to the [sic] Magistrate Kristin Mix’s Unfair and
Unreasonable Denial of Leave To Join Parties and Amend Pleadings and Motion
for Modification of the Scheduling Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 [#215], filed
May 20, 2014, are OVERRULED.
Dated June 24, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2