Ewing v. Horn

Filing 17

ORDER re 16 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Order re 15 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Ricky Ronnell Ewing is overruled and the Magistrate Judge's Order is affirmed. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 8/29/16. (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKY RONNELL EWING

PLAINTIFF

v.

CAUSE NO. 1:16CV122-LG-RHW

TAYLOR HORN, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO REBUTTAL
BEFORE THE COURT is the [16] Notice of Appeal filed by Plaintiff Ricky
Ronnell Ewing, who is proceeding pro se, with respect to the [15] Order entered by
United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker denying Ewing’s “Motion to
Rebuttal.” The Court has construed the Notice as an objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and has determined
that the objection should be overruled.
When a Magistrate Judge decides a nondispositive pretrial matter, such as
Ewing’s Motion to Rebuttal, “[a] party may serve and file objections to the order
within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). This Court
will then “consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order
that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.; see also Loc. Unif. Civ. R. 72(a).
Ewing’s objection was timely, even though incorrectly filed as a Notice of Appeal
directed to the Fifth Circuit.
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s [15] Order and the record
in this matter and finds that the Order is not contrary to law or clearly erroneous.

1

The Magistrate Judge found that, through his Motion for Rebuttal, Ewing was
seeking leave to file a reply to the Answer filed in this action, “which [wa]s
essentially a repetition of the allegations of his complaint.” (Order 1, ECF No. 15).
The Court agrees. Moreover, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)(7), also
cited by the Magistrate Judge, a reply to an answer is allowed only “if the Court
orders one . . . .” (emphasis added). The Magistrate Judge denied Ewing’s Motion
on the grounds that it had “ordered no reply in this case, and finds no reason to do
so.” (Order 1, ECF No. 15). The Court is of the opinion that the Order is neither
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the objection is overruled and the
magistrate judge’s order is affirmed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [16] Notice of
Appeal filed by Plaintiff Ricky Ronnell Ewing, which the Court has construed as an
objection made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, is OVERRULED
AND THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER IS AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 29th day of August, 2016.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2