Jones v. Skolnik et al

Filing 362

ORDER overruling 324 Objection. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/19/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9

CHRISTOPHER A. JONES,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
) 3:10-cv-00162-LRH-VPC
)
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

14
15

Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones’ (“Jones”) Objection to the Magistrate

16

Judge’s Order (Doc. #3181) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil

17

Procedure 72(a), and Local Rule IB 3-1(a). Doc. #324. Defendants filed a Response (Doc.

18

#333), to which Jones did not reply.

19

A magistrate judge’s orders operate as final determinations of pretrial matters under 28

20

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule IB 1-3. Accordingly, a district judge may reconsider a

21

magistrate judge’s order only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a).

23

The Court has reviewed the relevant documents and pleadings on file in this matter and

24

finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Order, to which Jones objects, is not clearly erroneous or

25

contrary to law. Therein, the Magistrate Judge denied Jones’ Motion to Compel (Doc. #281).

26

See Doc. #318. Here, Jones asserts that the Magistrate Judge did not put forth any discussion as

27

to three Requests for Production—#6, #8, and #34. However, the record is clear that the

28
1

Refers to the Court’s docket entry number.

1

Magistrate Judge reviewed the responses at issue and determined that they shall stand.

2

Evidently, she did not believe that the issue warranted explanation beyond that which was

3

provided in the discovery responses themselves. Here too, the Court is satisfied with the

4

discovery responses at issue. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Order

5

denying Jones Motion to Compel was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Jones’ Objection

6

is overruled.

7
8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jones’ Objection (Doc. #324) is OVERRULED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

DATED this 19th day of September, 2014.

11

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2