From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frye v. Clements

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 29, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00722-BNB (D. Colo. May. 29, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00722-BNB

05-29-2012

GREGORY P. FRYE, Applicant, v. TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director CDOC, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO JOHN SUTHERS, Respondents.


ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

This matter is before the Court on the "Objection to Continuance" (ECF No. 21) filed pro se on May 21, 2012, by Applicant, Gregory P. Frye. Mr. Frye specifically objects to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland's minute order of May 15, 2012 (ECF No. 20), granting Respondent's motion for extension of time to file a pre-answer response in this habeas corpus action.

Mr. Frye is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections who currently is incarcerated at the Kit Carson Correction Center in Burlington, Colorado. He has filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the validity of his state court criminal convictions.

On April 26, 2012, Magistrate Judge Boland ordered Respondents to file within twenty-one days a pre-answer response limited to addressing the affirmative defenses of timeliness and exhaustion of state court remedies. On May 15, Magistrate Judge Boland granted Respondents' motion for an extension of time to file their pre-answer response. Applicant objects to the extension of time because he believes the fact that counsel for Respondent is handling several other § 2254 cases pending before this Court and several cases pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals does not constitute "good cause." ECF No. 21 at 2-3.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) a judge may reconsider any pretrial matter designated to a magistrate judge to hear and determine where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court has reviewed the file and finds that Magistrate Judge Boland's minute order granting Respondents' motion for extension of time is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the "Objection to Continuance" (ECF No. 21) filed pro se on May 21, 2012, by Applicant, Gregory P. Frye, is overruled.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 29th day of May, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

______________________

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court


Summaries of

Frye v. Clements

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 29, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00722-BNB (D. Colo. May. 29, 2012)
Case details for

Frye v. Clements

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY P. FRYE, Applicant, v. TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director CDOC, and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: May 29, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00722-BNB (D. Colo. May. 29, 2012)