Jeffers v. Denver Public Schools et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration and 43 Motion for Mediation by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/13/17. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 16-cv-02243-CMA-MJW
DEVRA A. JEFFERS, MPA, MURP, MAED,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
DAVID SUPPES, and
NICOLE PORTEE,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR
MEDIATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Devra Jeffers’ two motions:
1. Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 41) of the Court’s Order Affirming and
Adopting the May 11, 2017 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Michael J. Watanabe (Doc. # 31), and
2. Motion for Mediation (Doc. # 43).
For the following reasons, the Court denies both of Plaintiff’s motions.
I.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on September 13, 2016 (Doc. #
9), which the Court then referred to Magistrate Judge Watanabe (Doc. # 29). On May
11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Watanabe issued his Report and Recommendation on
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed

without prejudice. (Doc. # 30.) The Recommendation clearly stated that “[p]ursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), the parties have fourteen (14)
days after service of this recommendation to serve and file specific written objections
to the above recommendation with the District Judge assigned to the case.” (Id. at 20)
(emphasis added.) Because the Recommendation issued May 11, 2017, the fourteenday window for objecting closed May 25, 2017. No party filed objections to the
Recommendation by May 25, 2017. After waiting to allow for mailing delay, on June 1,
2017, the Court issued its Order Affirming and Adopting the Recommendation and
dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. # 31.)
Approximately three and one half hours after the Court issued its Order, Plaintiff
filed her objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. (Doc. # 33.) This filing
was twenty-one days after the Recommendation was issued. Thus, Plaintiff’s
objections were not timely, even allowing six days for Plaintiff to receive and send
documents by mail. The Court has nonetheless reviewed Plaintiff’s objections which
are nothing more than a restatement of the arguments she had previously asserted to
the Magistrate Judge. This Court had already considered these arguments when it
reviewed the matter and issued its Order.
Grounds warranting reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60
include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A district court
has discretion to grant relief as justice requires under Rule 60, yet such relief is
2

“extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” Servants of
Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1009.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting
reconsideration in the instant motion. See (Doc. # 41.) Plaintiff alleges that the Court
erroneously “changed the timeline” for objecting to a report and recommendation from
twenty-one to twenty days and that the Court’s Order Affirming and Adopting the
Recommendation “disrespected” and “prejudiced” her. (Id.) However, as explained
above, the Recommendation clearly stated that pursuant to federal law, any party had
fourteen days to serve an objection. See (Doc. # 30 at 20.) Plaintiff’s argument for
reconsideration has no merit. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration. (Doc. # 41.)
II.

MOTION FOR MEDIATION

On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Mediation. (Doc. # 43.) She
requests that the Court “order early neutral evaluation through mediation” and that she
receive “pro bono assistance with this mediation based on lack of income.” (Id.)
Plaintiff does not explain what matters there are to mediate, nor does she provide legal
authority in support of her motion.
The Court denies this motion. Having affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s
complaint, this case is closed. Final Judgment has been entered. (Doc. # 32.) The
parties agreed on a bill of costs, see (Doc. # 38), and the Clerk of the Court accordingly
taxed costs in the amount of $1,068.41 against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants (Doc.

3

# 39.) The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, as explained above.
There is nothing left to mediate.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 41) is
DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Mediation (Doc. # 43) is DENIED.

DATED: November 13, 2017

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

4