Gabriel v. El Paso County Criminal Justice Center et al

Filing 84

ORDER that Plaintiffs Objection to Magistrate Judges Ruling 63 , filed October 22, 2015, is overruled. (evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01491-REB-CBS
VINCENT GABRIEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER,
THERESA PEDLEY COOPER,
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS,
CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, and
In Theresa Pedley’s and her male counterpart’s individual capacity as employees of El
Paso CJC,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Ruling
[#63],1 filed October 22, 2015, challenging the magistrate judge’s Order [#50], filed
October 9, 2015, granting Defendant Theresa Pedley Cooper’s Motion for Extension
of Time Out of Time in Which To File Responsive Pleading [#46], filed October 9,
2015. I overrule the objection.
Plaintiff’s objections pertain 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
1

“[#63]” 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.

be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Moreover, because plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, I have reviewed his filings more liberally than pleadings or papers filed by attorneys.
See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d
1081 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d
652 (1972); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Having reviewed the apposite order, as further expatiated by the magistrate
judge’s written Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [#66], filed
October 26, 2015, I find and conclude that the magistrate judge’s order is not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate
Judge’s Ruling [#63], filed October 22, 2015, is overruled.
Dated November 9, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2