United States District Court, D. Colorado
GILBERT T. TSO, individually, and as the parent and on behalf of M.X.T., Plaintiff,
REBECCA MURRAY, individually; TANYA AKINS, individually; SHERR PUTTMAN AKINS LAMB PC, a law firm; JEANNIE RIDINGS, individually; KILILIS RIDINGS & VANAU PC, a law firm; RUSSELL M. MURRAY, individually; DENA MURRAY, individually; JOANNE JENSEN, individually; RICHARD F. SPIEGLE, individually; DENVER DISTRICT COURT, a municipal entity; DENVER DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, a municipal entity; THE CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO; and, THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV.
William J. Martínez, Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Court
Review of Order (ECF No. 190 (Plaintiff's
“Motion”).) Plaintiff's Motion seeks review
of an Order entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
on July 14, 2017. (ECF No. 168 (the “Order”)),
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
considering objections to non-dispositive rulings by a
Magistrate Judge, such as that at issue here, the Court must
adopt the Magistrate Judge's ruling unless it finds that
the ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 562, 566
(10th Cir. 1997); Ariza v. U.S. West Commc'ns,
Inc., 167 F.R.D. 131, 133 (D. Colo. 1996). The clearly
erroneous standard “requires that the reviewing court
affirm unless it on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow
Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir.1988).
Judge Shaffer's Order permitted the late filing of two
Motions to Dismiss by certain Defendants, on Monday, July 10,
2017, or one business day after the filing deadline of
Friday, July 7, 2017, in part because of scheduled
maintenance to the Court's CM/ECF electronic filing
system beginning at approximately 5:00p.m. on July 7, 2017
(i.e., before the Defendants' midnight filing
deadline). The Order simultaneously granted Plaintiff's
request for additional time to respond to the Motions to
Court finds no error in Judge Shaffer's ruling, much less
clear error warranting reversal under Rule 72(a). To the
contrary, Judge Shaffer's Order correctly pointed out
that Plaintiff “has not articulated any prejudice,
” and reaffirmed the Court's preference “to
have motions and proceedings decided on their merits as
opposed to technicalities.” (ECF No. 168.) Plaintiffs
present Motion points to no legal or factual error in Judge
Shaffer's ruling. Plaintiff “agrees . . . that
[Defendants' failure to timely file [was] due to
excusable neglect.” (ECF No. 190 ¶ 11.) And, while
Plaintiff “complains of prejudice, ” he offers no
explanation of how he has been prejudiced. (Id.
extent Plaintiff complains more generally that he is being
treated unfairly, held to a higher standard than Defendants,
or subjected to an “inherent bias, ” (see Id.
¶¶ 15-21), the Court finds these claims
unfounded. The thrust of Plaintiff's complaints goes to
his dissatisfaction with the Court's entry of a stay of
discovery (id. ¶¶ 15 & 20), but that
matter is not raised herein, and in any event, any error
related to the stay would not be appropriately rectified by
striking Defendants' Motions to Dismiss based on timing
rather than addressing them on their merits.
reasons set forth above, the Court Judge Shaffer's Order
(ECF No. 168) is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No.
190) is OVERRULED.
 Plaintiff's Motion is captioned as
“Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Court Review of
ORDER ECF #68 of July 14, 2017.” (ECF No. 190.)
However, this is one of many filings in this case which
Plaintiff incorrectly docketed as an “Emergency Motion,
” when filing on the CM/ECF electronic filing system,
despite the lack of any claimed or demonstrated emergency.
Plaintiff is cautioned that future mis-labeling of any
filings as “emergency” requests for relief may
result in such filings being summarily stricken, without
being read by the Court.
 In sum, the Order acted on five
then-pending motions filed by Plaintiff, denying
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 157), denying
Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 158), granting
Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time (ECF No.
156), and denying as moot two ...