Hillesheim v. Carlson Hardware Company et al

Filing 34

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. United State Magistrate Judge Brisbois' January 30, 2017, Order 24 is AFFIRMED to the extent that the Order limits Plaintiff's inspection of the premises to the exterior of the building and the parking lot. 2. Plaintiff's Objection 31 is OVERRULED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 3/8/17. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

ZACH HILLESHEIM,
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER
Civil File No. 16-2989 (MJD/LIB)

CARLSON HARDWARE CO.,
BERNARD CARLSON, and
ETHEL CARLSON,
Defendants.
Padraigin Browne, Browne Law LLC, Counsel for Plaintiff.
David M. Wilk and Stephanie L. Chandler, Larson King, LLP, Counsel for
Defendants.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections
to the January 30, 2017, Order of Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. Specifically,
Plaintiff objects to the portion of the Order that limits Plaintiff’s inspection of the
premises to the exterior of the building and the parking lot.
This Court will reverse a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive
issue if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); D.
Minn. L.R. 72.2(a). The Court has reviewed the submissions and the record in
1

this case and concludes that the relevant portion of Magistrate Judge Brisbois’
Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the Order is
affirmed.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. United State Magistrate Judge Brisbois’ January 30, 2017, Order
[Docket No. 24] is AFFIRMED to the extent that the Order limits
Plaintiff’s inspection of the premises to the exterior of the
building and the parking lot.
2. Plaintiff’s Objection [Docket No. 31] is OVERRULED.

Dated: March 8, 2017

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court

2