Turner v. Hubbard Systems, Inc.

Filing 231

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered denying Appeals of Magistrate Judge's Decisions.(Danieli, Chris)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11407-GAO
GREGORY P. TURNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
HUBBARD SYSTEMS, INC.,
formerly known as and also doing business as
JIM HUBBARD AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
June 15, 2015
O’TOOLE, D.J.
This matter was referred to a magistrate judge for full pretrial and dispositive motions. The
magistrate judge has entered a number of orders, and the plaintiff has objected to those orders in
the form of “Notices of Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court.” As to various nondispositive pretrial motions, the plaintiff has filed the following: Objections to Magistrate Judge
Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents (dkt. no. 134); Objections to
Magistrate Judge Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge Time for Discovery and Reset
Deadlines (dkt. no. 135); Objections to Order Denying Motion to Take Deposition of Steven
Grodensky (dkt. no. 219). With respect to his prior motion to amend the complaint, which is the
subject of a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) largely adopted today, the plaintiff has filed
the following as Notices of Appeal: Objections to Magistrate Judge Order on Plaintiff’s First
Motion to Amend Complaint (dkt. no. 121); Amended Objections to Magistrate Judge Order on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint

(dkt. no. 161); 1 Motion for Clarification Regarding Order Dated January 5, 2015 (dkt. no. 190);
Objections (In Part) to the Report and Recommendation (dkt. no. 224). 2
The order adopting the R&R disposes of the plaintiff’s appeals regarding the motion to
amend. As to the other appeals, the magistrate judge’s determination of those issues shall stand. It
has not been shown that the magistrate judge’s orders are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
This matter remains under reference to the magistrate judge.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

1

This document amends a prior version of the Objections filed the same day (dkt. no. 160).
Although it is docketed by the plaintiff as a Notice of Appeal, the Court treats the Objections
(dkt. no. 224) as objections to the R&R pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
2

2