Shaka v. Ryan et al

Filing 298

ORDER overruling Plaintiff's objection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (Doc. 279 ). FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs Motion for Rule 60 relief (Doc. 280 ). Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 10/31/2014.(KMG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Shaka, No. CV 10-2253-PHX-SMM-BSB 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. ORDER Charles Ryan, et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s September 9, 17 2014 Order (Doc. 279, ref. 278) and motion for Rule 60 relief from the Court’s March 6, 18 2013 Order (Doc. 280). Plaintiff’s objection must be overruled and his motion must be 19 denied. 20 I. Objection to Magistrate Judge Orders 21 An appeal from the determination of a pretrial, non-dispositive matter by a 22 magistrate judge is reviewed by the district judge under a “clearly erroneous or contrary 23 to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Within 14 days 24 after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order, a party may serve and file 25 objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in the 26 magistrate judge’s order to which objection was not timely made. 27 Fed.R.Civ.P. 28 Rule 72(a), 1 Plaintiff challenges the Magistrate Judge’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s motion to 2 compel Defendants to produce MRI reports for Plaintiff’s knees, x-rays of Plaintiff’s 3 hands, the entire Health Services Technical Manual, and a declaration from Dr. Robert 4 Cohen filed in another action (Doc. 279). The Magistrate Judge concluded that the 5 sought documents were not relevant to this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The 6 Court agrees. The recent diagnostic images for Plaintiff’s knees and hands bear no 7 relationship to the discrete remaining claim in this action—an alleged lack of treatment 8 for Plaintiff’s shoulder in 2009. Nor does Plaintiff adequately explain why the entire 9 Health Services Technical Manual or documents from another lawsuit are necessary to 10 respond to Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion. In short, there is no basis to 11 conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 12 See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). The objection is overruled. 13 II. Motion for Rule 60 Relief 14 Plaintiff also moves for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a)–(b) 15 (Doc. 280). This is Plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 13, 16 2013 Order dismissing Count I. Neither Rule 60(a) or 60(b)(1) provide any basis to alter 17 the Court’s ruling. Indeed, none of Plaintiff’s arguments support the finding that a 18 clerical mistake or omission caused Count I to be dismissed. Instead, Plaintiff disagrees 19 with the merits of the Court’s conclusion. But the Court will not revisit—for the fourth 20 time—Plaintiff’s arguments in response to the motion to dismiss Count I. Plaintiff’s 21 motion for relief under Rule 60 is denied. 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED overruling Plaintiff’s objection under Fed. R. Civ. 23 P. 72 (Doc. 279). 24 ... 25 26 27 28 -2- 1 2 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 60 relief (Doc. 280). DATED this 31st day of October, 2014. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?