Maestas v. LeGrand et al

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING P's 75 Motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 8/6/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14
15

NICHOLAS MAESTAS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT LEGRAND, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )

3:10-cv-00585-HDM-VPC
ORDER

16
The plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider several rulings
17
made by the magistrate judge during a hearing on the plaintiff’s
18
motion to compel conducted on June 22, 2012 (#75).

Defendants have

19
opposed (#78), and plaintiff has replied (#87).
20
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the magistrate judge may
21
hear and determine many pretrial matters, including discovery
22
motions.

The district judge may reconsider magistrate judge

23
rulings that are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

Id.

The

24
court has reviewed the plaintiff’s motion, the defendants’ response
25
and the plaintiff’s reply, and concludes that neither the
26
magistrate judge’s rulings nor the conduct of the June 22, 2012,
27
hearing was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
28
1

The court

1

further notes that under § 636(b)(1) the magistrate judge has the

2

authority to decide certain pretrial matters, including discovery

3

motions, regardless of the plaintiff’s consent.

4

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s

5

discovery rulings (#75) is hereby DENIED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Accordingly,

DATED: This 6th day of August, 2012.

8
9

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2