Daker v. Head et al

Filing 433

ORDER overruling all of Plaintiff's 306 Objections filed by Waseem Daker. The Magistrate Judges Order remains the Order of the Court. Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 05/27/2022. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
WASEEM DAKER,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:14-cv-47

v.
BRIAN OWENS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s April 16,
2021 Order. (Doc. 306.) For the reasons below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s Order. The Magistrate Judge’s Order remains the Order of the Court.
When a magistrate judge rules on a non-dispositive pretrial discovery matter, parties may
object to that ruling and seek review from the district judge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). In reviewing the magistrate judge’s order, the district judge must
“modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id. The
clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard “is exceedingly deferential.” Jackson v. Deen, CV
412-139, 2013 WL 3991793, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 2, 2013) (citing Pigott v. Sanibel Dev., LLC,
CV 07-0083, 2008 WL 2937804, at *5 (S.D. Ala. July 23, 2008)). “A ruling is clearly erroneous
where either the magistrate judge abused his discretion or the district court, after reviewing the
entirety of the record, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Id. (citations omitted). “A decision by the magistrate judge is contrary to law where it either fails
to follow or misapplies the applicable law.” Id. (citations omitted).

The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s April 16, 2021 Order and
Plaintiff’s Objections to that Order. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any of the Magistrate Judge’s
decisions in that Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff’s Objections consist
almost entirely of meritless arguments that have been considered—and properly rejected—
numerous times in this matter. 1 (See Docs. 234, 258.) Therefore, the Court OVERRULES all
of Plaintiff’s Objections.
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of May, 2022.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1

Indeed, Plaintiff’s subsequent motions to amend, all of which Plaintiff claims are an improvement to the
proposed Amended Complaint the Magistrate Judge rejected on April 16, 2021, have also been denied.
(Docs. 354, 410, 420.)

2