Roche v. Lincoln College of Technology et al
ORDER overruling 12 Objection by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/10/13. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01204-BNB
JOHN JOSEPH ROCHE,
LINCOLN COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY,
SUE KUHL, and
Plaintiff, John Joseph Roche, filed a pro se Objection to Extension of Time to
Answer on May 31, 2013, that the Court construes as an Objection filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland’s May 30, 2013
Minute Order, ECF No. 11, granting Defendants Lincoln College of Technology and
Allan Short an extension of time to file an answer or otherwise to respond. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) a judge may reconsider any pretrial matter designated to a
magistrate judge to hear and determine whether it has been shown that the magistrate
judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
As Magistrate Judge Boland stated in the May 30 minute order, Defendants
complied with Rule 7.1.A of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District for
the District of Colorado in conferring with Plaintiff before filing the Motion for Extension.
Furthermore, in the May 8 Order to Cure, Magistrate Judge Boland instructed Plaintiff to
state the jurisdiction for his claims in the complaint he is to submit on a Court-approved
form. An answer, therefore, is due only after Plaintiff has asserted the jurisdiction for his
claims. Finally, nothing precludes a judicial officer from ruling on a motion at any time
after it is filed. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.C. The Court finds the May 8 minute order is
not erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s construed 28 U.S.C. § 636 Objection, ECF No. 12, filed
on May 31, 2013, is overruled.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?