Fontaine v. City of Charlotte et al
ORDER denying 6 Motion to Strike/Objection. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 4/13/2011. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
TORNELLO FONTAINE, pierce el-bey
Grantor Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah
Muur’s Grantor / In Propria Persona,
CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURD POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, T. BOBREK, and
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike/Objection
(Doc. No. 6). The Plaintiff appears to take issue with the Magistrate Judge’s having ruled on the
Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The Plaintiff is under the mistaken
impression that a magistrate judge may not determine any motions in a case without the parties’
consent, as he cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) in arguing his position. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b), a magistrate judge may “hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court”
in a civil action other than certain motions that would effectively end the case, as well as motions
to dismiss or permit maintenance of a class action. In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(a) specifically sets forth the framework allowing a magistrate judge to hear and decide a
nondispositive motion upon the district court’s directive, regardless of the parties’ consent. A
motion for extension of time to answer is a nondispositive motion, as it does not dispose of any
claim or defense in the action – it merely allows a party more time to act.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike/Objection (Doc. No.
6) is DENIED.
Signed: April 13, 2011
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.