Pattison v. The State of Nevada, Ex Rel, Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 78

ORDER overruling 47 Objections and affirming 45 Magistrate Judge Cooke's Order. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/9/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11

DANTE H. PATTISON,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00020-MMD-VPC

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

ORDER

v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel.
NEVADA DEPARTEMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

SUMMARY

19

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s L.R. 1B 3-1(a)(b), L.R. 1B 3-2(a)(b) Objections to,

20

and Appeal from the Magistrate’s September 19, 2014, Order and FRCP 60(b) Motion

21

for Relief (“Objection”). (Dkt. no. 47.) For reasons stated below, the Court denies the

22

Motion.

23

II.

BACKGROUND

24

On September 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Cooke denied Plaintiff’s Motion for

25

Leave of Court for an Order Allowing Plaintiffs FRCP 56(c) Motion Excessive Pages and

26

Relief Sought (dkt. no. 43). Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the decision and asks this

27

Court to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s Order. (Dkt. no. 47.) Defendants timely filed

28

a response. (Dkt. no. 52.)

1

III.

DISCUSSION

2

A.

Legal Standard

3

Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district

4

court review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. §

5

636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L.R. IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may

6

reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case

7

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

8

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). “This subsection would also enable the court to

9

delegate some of the more administrative functions to a magistrate judge, such as . . .

10

assistance in the preparation of plans to achieve prompt disposition of cases in the

11

court.” Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869 (1989). “A finding is clearly

12

erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the

13

entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

14

committed.” United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation

15

omitted). A magistrate judge’s pretrial order issued under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is

16

not subject to de novo review, and the reviewing court “may not simply substitute its

17

judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951

18

F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).

19

B.

Analysis

20

After reviewing Magistrate Judge Cooke’s Order and Plaintiff’s Objection, the

21

Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Order was not clearly erroneous or

22

contrary to law. In fact, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that

23

Plaintiff should be able to comply with the 30 page limit in preparing his dispositive

24

motion. Plaintiff’s Objection is therefore overruled.

25

IV.

CONCLUSION

26

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s L.R. 1B 3-1(a)(b), L.R. 1B 3-2(a)(b)

27

Objections to, and Appeal from the Magistrate’s September 19, 2014, Order and FRCP

28

60(b) Motion for Relief (dkt. no. 47) is overruled.
2

1

It is further ordered that Magistrate Judge Cooke’s decision (dkt. no. 45) denying

2

Plaintiff’s motion to exceed page limit (dkt. no. 43) and striking Plaintiff’s motion for

3

summary judgment (dkt. no. 44) is affirmed.

4

DATED THIS 9th day of January 2015.

5
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3