Cox v. Palmer et al

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING 53 Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's 47 Order. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 7/28/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Cox v. Palmer et al

Doc. 92

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA RENO, NEVADA MICHAEL-STEVE COX, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) J. PALMER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________) PRESENT: Deputy Clerk: EDWARD C. REED, JR. COLLEEN LARSEN Reporter: 3:08-CV-00663-ECR-RAM MINUTES OF THE COURT DATE: July 28, 2010

U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE NONE APPEARING

Counsel for Plaintiff(s) Counsel for Defendant(s) MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS

NONE APPEARING NONE APPEARING

On October 27, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion (#53) for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Order (#47) denying Plaintiff's motion (#19) to compel. "A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case pursuant to LR IB 1-3 where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Local Rule IB 3-1; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The "contrary to law" standard only applies to the Magistrate Judge's legal conclusions, which are reviewed de novo. The Magistrate Judge's decision (#47) was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (#53) is DENIED. LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK By /s/ Deputy Clerk

Dockets.Justia.com