Public Service Company v. Board of County Commissioners

Full title: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Mar 24, 2006

Civil Case No. 04-cv-01828-REB-CBS (D. Colo. Mar. 24, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 04-cv-01828-REB-CBS.

March 24, 2006

ORDER CONCERNING OBJECTION TO ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

ROBERT BLACKBURN, District Judge

This matter is before me on 1) Willard F. Janke, Jr.'s Objection to Order of United States Magistrate Judge Regarding Renewed Motion to Intervene [#99], filed September 22, 2005; and 2) Willard F. Janke, Jr.'s Motion to Reconsider Order Concerning Preliminary Injunction [#92], filed August 15, 2005. The objection and motion are denied.

Under 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." Having reviewed the magistrate judge's ruling, as well as the apposite objections and response thereto, I conclude that the magistrate judge's determination is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Specifically, I conclude that Magistrate Judge Shaffer properly addressed Janke's Renewed Motion to Intervene [#93], filed August 16, 2005, via an order rather than via a recommendation.¹ Further, I conclude that Magistrate Judge Shaffer's denial of that motion is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

1 If the magistrate judge had addressed the motion to intervene via a recommendation, and Janke had objected on the bases stated in his objection to the magistrate judge's order, then I would overrule Janke's objections, and approve and adopt the recommendation.

Just prior to filing his Renewed Motion to Intervene, Janke filed his Motion to Reconsider Order Concerning Preliminary Injunction [#92]. In that motion, he asks that I reconsider my order denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Janke is not a party to this case, and his motions to intervene have been denied. As a non-party, Janke may not seek reconsideration of my preliminary inunction order.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That Willard F. Janke, Jr.'s Objection to Order of United States Magistrate Judge Regarding Renewed Motion to Intervene [#99], filed September 22, 2005, is OVERRULED AND DENIED; and

2. That Willard F. Janke, Jr.'s Motion to Reconsider Order Concerning Preliminary Injunction [#92], filed August 15, 2005, is DENIED.