Alba v. Colvin

Filing 19

ORDER setting a telephonic Status Conference for 5/29/2015 10:00 AM, before Judge Robert E. Blackburn, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 5/22/15. (dkals, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Action No. 14-cv-01143-REB JOSEPHINE ALBA, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER Blackburn, J. This matter is before me sua sponte. It has come to the court’s attention that the parties previously indicated their intention to consent to the resolution of this case by a United States Magistrate Judge. (See Joint Case Management Plan for Social Security Cases ¶ 10 at 3 [#14],1 filed July 7, 2014.) Despite this ostensible agreement, the parties have not yet filed the form of consent required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2(d) to permit the exercise of consent jurisdiction by a magistrate judge. The court thus finds that a telephonic status conference is necessary to clarify this issue. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the court shall conduct a telephonic (non-appearance) status conference 1 “[#12]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court’s management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order. on Friday, May 29, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. (MDT), at which time counsel for both parties shall contact the court’s Judicial Assistant at (303) 335-2350 to discuss the parties’ ostensible consent to reassigning this matter to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, as indicated by their previous submission to the court; and 2. That counsel for plaintiff shall arrange, initiate, and coordinate the conference call necessary to facilitate the status conference. Dated May 22, 2015, 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?