Savoie et al v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company et al
ORDER denying 197 MOTION for APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court as stated herein. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 12/5/2017. (cg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LORITA M. SAVOIE, ET AL.
HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INC., ET
SECTION: “J” (3)
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Review Magistrate
Inc.’s (“O-I”), opposition thereto (Rec. Doc. 223).
magistrate judge’s Order granting O-I’s Motion for Leave to File
Counterclaim (Rec. Doc. 192).
Upon review of the record, the
memoranda of counsel, and the applicable law, the Court finds that
the motion should be DENIED.
A magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion may
be appealed to the district court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
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.”
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. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). After
reviewing the case, the magistrate judge’s Order, and the arguments
of the parties, the Court finds that no such mistake has been made
and that Plaintiffs have not shown that the magistrate judge’s
ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
Magistrate Judge’s Order (Rec. Doc. 197) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of December, 2017.
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?