DOYLE v. BABINE, COUNCILOR et al
ORDER DENYING 90 OBJECTION TO THE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (jgd)
Case 2:19-cv-00469-JDL Document 92 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 2
PageID #: 581
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MICHAEL A. DOYLE,
SHAWN BABINE, et al.,
ORDER DENYING OBJECTION TO THE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE
Plaintiff Michael A. Doyle moved to seal an affidavit that he submitted in
response to the Court’s directive to provide additional financial information in
connection with his earlier request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos.
83, 84). United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison denied the motion on
December 30, 2020 (ECF No. 89), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(A) (West 2021)
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Doyle filed a timely objection on January 7, 2021 (ECF No.
A district judge must modify a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive
matter only when “any part of the order . . . is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Phinney v. Wentworth Douglas Hosp., 199 F. 3d 1, 5 (1st
Local Rule 72.1(a) further notes that a party seeking review of a
magistrate judge’s nondispositive order must “file an objection with an incorporated
Case 2:19-cv-00469-JDL Document 92 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 2
PageID #: 582
memorandum of law to those specific portions for which review is sought” (emphasis
Doyle’s objection does not specify any part of the Magistrate Judge’s decision
that is erroneous or contrary to law, but instead rehashes arguments that have
already been rejected by this Court. Because Doyle does not identify “those specific
portions [of the Order] for which review is sought,” his objection fails to meet the
requirements of both Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and Local R. 72.1.
It is therefore ORDERED that Doyle’s Objection (ECF No. 90) is DENIED
and that Doyle’s affidavit (ECF No. 85) be unsealed.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2021.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
CHIEF U.S. 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?