Belyakov v. Henry M. Jackson Foundation

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OVERRULING 37 Plaintiff's objection to the court's order dated August 28, 2015 (c/m to Plaintiff 10/14/15 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/14/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
IGOR BELYAKOV
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 13-3656

:
HENRY M. JACKSON FOUNDATION
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is an objection filed by Plaintiff
Igor Belyakov, to a discovery ruling issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on August 28, 2015.

(ECF No.

37).

will

For

the

reasons

that

follow,

the

objection

overruled.
As I recently noted:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), non-dispositive
pretrial matters may be referred to a
magistrate
judge
for
hearing
and
determination.
A district judge may modify
or set aside any portion of a magistrate
judge’s non-dispositive ruling “where it has
been shown that the magistrate judge’s order
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Local Rule
301.5.a.
“The [district] judge may also
receive further evidence or recommit the
matter
to
the
magistrate
judge
with
instructions.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to
factual findings, while legal conclusions
will be rejected if they are “contrary to
law.”
MMI Prods. v. Long, 231 F.R.D. 215,

be

218
(D.Md.2005).
Under
the
clearly
erroneous standard, the reviewing court is
not to ask whether the finding is the best
or only conclusion permissible based on the
evidence.
Nor is it to substitute its own
conclusions for that of the magistrate
judge.
See Tri–Star Airlines, Inc. v.
Willis Careen Corp., 75 F.Supp.2d 835, 839
(W.D.Tenn.1999).
Rather, the court is only
required to determine whether the magistrate
judge’s
findings
are
reasonable
and
supported by the evidence. Id. “It is not
the function of objections to discovery
rulings to allow wholesale relitigation of
issues resolved by the magistrate judge.”
Buchanan v. Consol. Stores Corp., 206 F.R.D.
123 (D.Md.2002); Int'l Ass'n of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers v. Werner–Masuda, 390
F.Supp.2d 479, 486 (D.Md.2005).
Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Discovery Commc'ns, LLC, 28 F. Supp. 3d
465, 479-80 (D. Md. 2014).

Even though Plaintiff has not stated

precisely why he objects to the ruling, I have reviewed Judge
Day’s ruling along with Plaintiff’s motion to compel and find no
clearly erroneous factual findings nor erroneous legal rulings.
Accordingly, the objections are OVERRULED.
Accordingly, it is this 14th day of October, 2015, by the
United

States

District

Court

for

ORDERED that:

2

the

District

of

Maryland,

1.
August

Plaintiff’s
28,

2015

objection

(ECF

No.

37)

to

the

court’s

BE,

and

the

same

order

dated

hereby

IS,

OVERRULED; and
2.

The

clerk

is

directed

to

transmit

copies

of

this

Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff and counsel for the
Defendant.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3