Howze v. Orozco et al

Filing 107

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/26/21 ORDERING that plaintiff's objections to the MagistrateJudge's March 8, 2021 order are OVERRULED and the March 8, 2021 order is AFFIRMED. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

J.L. HOWZE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-1738 JAM AC P

v.

ORDER

A.B. OROZCO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order filed March 8, 2021. ECF

17
18

No. 105. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to object to non-dispositive orders

19

issued by magistrate judges and requires that the district judge “modify or set aside any part of the

20

order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Standing alone, the fact that plaintiff did not

21

receive defendant Sahota’s responses to discovery that were served on January 8, 2021, is not

22

sufficient to demonstrate that Sahota did not in fact serve his responses on that date, as

23

demonstrated by counsel’s declaration (ECF No. 89). The March 8, 2021 order of the Magistrate

24

Judge is therefore not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and the objections will therefore be

25

overruled.

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

1
2

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s March 8, 2021 order are OVERRULED and the March 8, 2021 order is AFFIRMED.

3
4
5
6

DATED: April 26, 2021

/s/ John A. Mendez
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2