Walker v. Ryan et al

Filing 136

ORDER AND OPINION that Magistrate Judge Anderson's order was not contrary to law, and further finding that none of his rulings are clearly erroneous, therefore denying 129 Motion for Review. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 6/14/2012.(LSP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SHELDON WALKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-CV-1408 JWS - LOA

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is on referral to Magistrate Judge Anderson for pre-trial proceedings.
In an order at docket 125, the magistrate granted in part and denied in part plaintiff
Walker’s motion to compel defendants to respond to certain discovery requests. At
docket 129, plaintiff asks this court to review Magistrate Judge Anderson’s order. When
evaluating a request to review such a decision by a magistrate judge, this court
examines the record to determine whether the magistrate judge’s order was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636.
To begin with, this court finds that the order at docket 125 is not contrary to law.
The magistrate judge identified the correct legal standard in Section II. of his order and
correctly discussed the “meet and confer” requirement applicable to discovery motions
in Section III, A. Furthermore, the magistrate judge correctly identified what claims
remain for resolution and tied his decision to those claims. See Section III. B.

The order goes on to carefully address each disputed discovery request. In
resolving each dispute, the magistrate judge’s decisions appear correct. They certainly
are not clearly erroneous. Rather, as this court reads the order, the magistrate judge
did an excellent job in articulating sound reasons for his ruling on each of the disputed
items.
Finding that Magistrate Judge Anderson’s order was not contrary to law, and
further finding that none of his rulings are clearly erroneous, this court will deny the
motion for review at docket 129.
For the reasons above, the motion at docket 129 is DENIED.
DATED this 14th day of June 2012.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-