Walker v. Gusman et al
Filing
203
ORDER AFFIRMING 164 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court; DENYING 167 Motion ; GRANTING 167 Motion for Extension of Deadlines; AFFIRMING 177 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 1/13/14. (cbn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARK WALKER
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 12-2521
MARLIN GUSMAN, ET AL.
SECTION: "S" (3)
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States Magistrate Judge's Order denying
plaintiff's discovery motions, motions for sanctions, and motion for a telephone conference (Doc.
#153) is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff's discovery motions, motions for sanctions, and motion for a
telephone conference were Docs. #55, 66, 72, 79, 85, 90, 94, 100, 103, 120, 137, 140. His appeals
of the United States Magistrate Judge's Order denying those motions were Docs. #164, 171 and 177.
An order issued by a magistrate judge concerning nondispositive pretrial matters is reviewed
by the district court under the clearly erroneous standard. See Perales v. Sasilla, 950 F.2d 1066,
1070 (5th Cir. 1992); 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 636(b)(1)(A) (West 2009). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
the magistrate judge's decisions were clearly erroneous.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Order Directing Defendants to
Follow Pre-Trial and Scheduling Orders and Extension of Deadline to Do So" (Doc. #167) is
DENIED as to directing the defendants to follow the pre-trial and scheduling order because plaintiff
has not demonstrated that the defendants have not complied therewith. The motion is GRANTED
as to extending the discovery cut-off deadline, which shall be reset to February 11, 2014.
13th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of January, 2014.
____________________________________
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?