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)

Download PDF
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

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?