Ashcraft v. White Pine County Hospital District dba William B Ririe Hospital & Clinic & Three unnamed officers of William Bee Ririe Hospital

Filing 35

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that P's 28 Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/21/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

MICHELLE ANN ASHCRAFT,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

WHITE PINE COUNTY HOSPITAL
DISTRICT dba WILLIAM B. RIRIE
HOSPITAL & CLINIC, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15
16

3:11-CV-00383-LRH-WGC
ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff Michelle Ann Ashcraft’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order

17

(#281). Defendant White Pine County Hospital District, dba William Bee Ririe Hospital, filed an

18

opposition (#29). No reply was filed.

19

Plaintiff objects the Magistrate Judge’s Order (#27) of March 21, 2012, denying Plaintiff’s

20

Motion to Strike Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Amend Complaint (#23), and denying

21

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (#19) as futile. The substance of the objection is limited,

22

however, to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on the motion to strike. Plaintiff contends the Magistrate

23

Judge erred in rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s opposition to her motion to amend

24

was actually, and should be construed as, a motion to dismiss brought on behalf of the three

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1

individual defendants that Plaintiff sought to add through her amended complaint.

2

“A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil

3

or criminal case pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s ruling

4

is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” LR IB 3-1(a). Here, the Magistrate Judge specifically

5

considered and rejected each of Plaintiff’s arguments, and Plaintiff’s objection merely repeats those

6

arguments while entirely failing to address the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Moreover, having

7

considered the Magistrate Judge’s thorough analysis, the court finds nothing that is clearly

8

erroneous or contrary to law.

9
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order
(#28) is DENIED.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED this 21st day of May, 2012.

13
14
15

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2