Strohmeyer v. Belanger et al

Filing 142

ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF Nos. 100 , 101 , and 108 Objections. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/29/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

______________________________________
)
)
JEREMY JOSEPH STROHMEYER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
K. BELANGER, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:14-cv-661-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

12
13

The Plaintiff has made three objections to this Court challenging the holdings of Magistrate

14

Judge William G. Cobb. The Court finds that all of these objections are without merit and denies

15

the Plaintiff’s objections.

16

A court reviews orders by magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under the statute,

17

non-dispositive orders are only overturned if they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28

18

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

19

First, in the Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 100), the Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate

20

Judge erred by denying the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Defendants’ Answer to the Second

21

Amended Complaint in his Minute Order (ECF No. 97). The crux of Plaintiff’s argument is that

22

the Nevada Attorney General cannot represent a party without an acceptance of service. The

23

Plaintiff presents no authority for the premise nor can the Court find any such authority.

24

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err.
1 of 2

1

In the next Objection (ECF No. 101), the Plaintiff argues that The Magistrate Judge erred

2

in Minute Order (ECF No. 95). The Magistrate Judge denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the

3

joinder of Defendant Michael Ward to the Defendant’s Answer to the Second Amended Complaint

4

(ECF No. 94). The Plaintiff hopes that by striking the joinder he will be able to obtain default

5

judgment. However, default judgments are strongly disfavored by the courts and there is no rule

6

against the joinder of Mr. Ward to the answer. Thus, this Court holds that the Magistrate Judge did

7

not err.

8

In the last Objection (ECF No. 108), the Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred

9

in Minute Order (ECF No. 103). The Magistrate Judge denied the Plaintiff’s motion to recover

10

costs from the Defendants for his appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff claims that he should

11

not have to pay for a successful appeal, because the fee is unjust. However, there is no rule to

12

support this finding, especially one that would allow for the recovery from defendants that had yet

13

to appear. Therefore, the Court holds that the Magistrate Judge did not err.

14

CONCLUSION

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 100) is DENIED.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 101) is DENIED.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 108) is DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

29th day May 2019.
Dated this 3rd day of of May, 2019.

21
22

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

23
24
2 of 2