Castro v. Tanner

Filing 28

ORDER denying 19 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 11/26/12. (sek, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CASTRO

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 12-2049

TANNER

SECTION: “J” (4)

ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Review Magistrate
Judge’s Order (Rec. Doc. 19). This motion, which is opposed, is set
for hearing on November 21, 2012. Upon review of the motion, the
memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, this Court now finds
that Petitioner’s motion should be DENIED.
A magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive motion may be
appealed to the district court.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

When

objections are raised to such a ruling the district judge must
consider them timely and “modify or set aside any part of the order
that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Under this
standard, a magistrate judge’s decision must be affirmed unless “on
the entire evidence [the court] is left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.

Untied States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). After reviewing
the case, the magistrate judge’s order, and the arguments of the
parties, this Court finds that no such mistake has been made in the
magistrate judge’s Order (Rec. Doc. 17) and the Petitioner has not
shown that the magistrate judge’s ruling is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.”

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioner’s motion is DENIED
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of November, 2012.

_____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2