Nasseff v. Braun et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 ORDER RE: APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge(Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 5/9/2018. (DLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 18-396(DSD/BRT)
Anthony J. Nasseff, Jr.
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

William Braun, Michael
Costello, Abby Domagalski,
Glenn Lisowy, Robert Martin,
Inez Reordan, Michelle Smith,
Paula A. Thielen, Jerry Thor,
Nick Vidal, Tammy Wherley,
Theresa Wohlhafer,
In their individual capacities,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the appeal by pro se
plaintiff Anthony J. Nasseff, Jr. of Magistrate Judge Becky R.
Thorson’s April 2, 2018, order requiring him to file an amended
complaint that complies with the federal pleading requirements
(Order).1

ECF No. 8 at 3.

Nasseff appealed the order on May 4th.

Local Rule 72.2 provides that appeals to magistrate judge orders
must be filed within fourteen days of service. Here, Nasseff filed
his appeal well after that time period and his appeal is therefore
untimely.

Even if timely, however, the appeal lacks merit.

The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate
judge’s order on nondispositive matters is “extremely deferential.”

1

Magistrate Judge Thorson originally ordered Nasseff to file
an amended complaint within twenty days of the date of the order,
but later extended the deadline to May 18, 2018. ECF No. 10.

Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D.
Minn. 1999).

The court will reverse such an order only if it is

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); D.
Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3). “A finding is clearly erroneous when although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.”

Chakales v. Comm’r of Internal

Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).

“A decision is contrary to law when it

fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules
of procedure.”

Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254

F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
The court is satisfied that the magistrate judge properly
exercised her discretion in determining that Nasseff’s original
complaint was deficient and subject to dismissal.

She allowed

Nasseff to remedy its deficiencies by filing an amended complaint,
and he must do so in the time period permitted if he wishes to
maintain this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal [ECF No. 11]
is denied.
Dated: May 9, 2018
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

2