Jones v. Skolnik et al

Filing 363

ORDER overruling 289 Objection. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/24/14. (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. #2801) 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. #289. A magistrate judge’s orders operate as

18

final determinations of pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule IB 1-3.

19

Accordingly, a district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s order only if it is “clearly

20

erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a).

21

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

22

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

23

contrary to law. Therein, the Magistrate Judge addressed Jones’ Motion to Determine the

24

Sufficiency of Admissions (Doc. #253). See Doc. #280. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge

25

reviewed the supplemental responses at issue and determined them to be acceptable. See id.

26

Here, Jones asserts that his Motion (Doc. #253) was not completely, impartially, and fairly

27

reviewed by the Magistrate Judge because she did not have the supplemental responses before

28
1

Refers to the Court’s docket entry number.

1

her for review. Jones’ contention in this regard is entirely without merit. Jones himself provided

2

a copy of the supplemental responses at issue to the Court in his Motion. See Doc. #253, Ex. A.

3

As such, the Magistrate Judge’s ruling that the supplemental responses shall stand was not

4

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Jones’ Objection is overruled.

5
6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jones’ Objection (Doc. #289) is OVERRULED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED this 24th day of September, 2014.

9
10

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2