Fernandez v. Centric et al

Filing 278

ORDER overruling 233 OBJECTION re 227 Order. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/6/14. (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

KEVIN FERNANDEZ,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

DR. CENTRIC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
) 3:12-cv-00401-LRH-WGC
)
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

14
15

Before the Court is Plaintiff Kevin Fernandez’s (“Fernandez”) Objection to the

16

Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. #2271) pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-1. Doc. #233. A magistrate

17

judge’s orders operate as final determinations of pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

18

and Local Rule IB 1-3. Accordingly, a district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s order

19

only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

72(a); LR IB 3-1(a).

21

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

22

that Fernandez’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his Motion to Compel

23

Supplementary Responses (Doc. #226) is without merit. As the Magistrate Judge noted in its

24

October 1, 2013 Order, it is impossible to ascertain whether the discovery requests in the Motion

25

at issue (Doc. #226) pertain in any way to the discovery requests in an earlier motion (Doc.

26

#121). See Doc. #227, p. 2. Accordingly, Fernandez was not relieved of the obligation to attach

27
28
1

Refers to the Court’s docket entry number.

1

the discovery pursuant to Local Rule 26-7.2 Moreover, because the discovery in the Motion at

2

issue (Doc. #226) did not relate to the discovery requests in the earlier Motion (Doc. #121),

3

Fernandez’s Motion (Doc. #226) was not authorized pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s stay on

4

discovery. See Doc. #200. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the

5

Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. #227) was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Fernandez’s Objection (Doc. #233) is
OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of May, 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

The Magistrate Judge’s April 22, 2013 Order permitting departure from the provisions
of Local Rule 26-7 pertained only to the discovery that was the subject of Fernandez’s earlier
Motion (Doc. #121). See Doc. #200, p. 4 n. 3.
2