Opinion
Civil Case No. 12-cv-00063-REB-CBS
07-09-2012
BOB ALLEN CUSTARD, Plaintiff, v. DAVID ALLRED, CLEMENTI, BENJAMIN BRIESCHKE, MARK COLLINS, COOK, BLAKE DAVIS, ANDREW FENLON, FOSTER, J. JOHNSON, KELLAR, RICHARD MADISON, MARK MUNSON, T. MANSPEAKER, ANTHONY OSAGIE, P. RANGEL, SMITH, TENA SUDLOW, C.A. WILSON, BUREAU OF PRISONS, HUDDLESTON, MITCHELL, STEVEN ROGERS, VANAMAN, and R. WILEY, Defendants.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO ORDER (DOC. 89)
STRIKING "PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION (DOC. 86) TO
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME"
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff's Objection to Order (Doc. 89) Striking "Plaintiff's Opposition (Doc. 86) to Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time [#92] filed June 12, 2012. I overrule the objection.
"[#92]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
Plaintiffs' objection pertains to non-dispositive matters that have been 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 be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, 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).
I have reviewed the magistrate judge's order and the apposite motion. I conclude that the magistrate judge's order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Indeed, I fully concur in the magistrate judge's decision to strike the pleading as inappropriate and abusive. I caution Mr. Custard, as did Chief Judge Daniel in a prior case, that this court will not entertain filings that contain obscene language or cast unwarranted and unsubstantiated aspersions on the character and actions of opposing counsel, and therefore, "[f]uture filings containing abusive or inappropriate language will be stricken without further notice." Custard v. Young, 2008 WL 791954 at *10 (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2008).
--------
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the objections stated in Plaintiff's Objection to Order (Doc. 89) Striking "Plaintiff's Opposition (Doc. 86) to Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time [#92] filed June 12, 2012, are OVERRULED.
Dated July 9, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
_________________
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge