Young v. Shipman et al

Filing 52

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing denying 16 plaintiff's Motion to Hold in Contempt. (lj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GUY YOUNG,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 22-CV-161-JCH-LF

M SHIPMAN, FNU BROWN,
GARY MACIEL,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HOLD IN CONTEMPT
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Guy Young’s Motion to Hold in Contempt
(Doc. 16), filed July 28, 2023. Defendant Gary Maciel filed a response on August 4, 2023, (Doc.
17), and defendants Mark Shipman and David Brown filed a response on August 9, 2023 (Doc.
19). Mr. Young did not file a reply. I find no grounds to hold defendants in contempt and
therefore deny Mr. Young’s motion.
On May 9, 2023, I ordered defendants to file answers and Martinez reports by June 7 and
July 25, 2023, respectively. See Doc. 8. All defendants filed their answers June 1, 2023 (Docs. 9,
11) and Martinez reports July 25, 2023 (Docs. 13, 15). However, because of the time needed for
mail to reach Mr. Young—and because Mr. Maciel neglected to mail a copy of his Martinez
report until July 31, 2023, see Doc. 18 at 1—defendants’ reports had not reached Mr. Young by
July 26, 2023, the date on which he filed his Motion to Hold in Contempt. Compare Doc. 16 at 2
with Doc. 19 at 1. Because of this delay, Mr. Young alleges that defendants failed to comply with
the Court’s order, and he requests that they be held in contempt and sanctioned. See generally

Doc. 16. Because defendants did, in fact, comply with the Court’s order, I deny Mr. Young’s
motion.
THE PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED that pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(a), a magistrate judge is
assigned to this case “to preside over all non-dispositive pre-trial matters in accordance
with FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).” D.N.M.LR-Civ. 73.1(a). “A party may serve and file objections
to [a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive pre-trial matter] within 14 days after
being served with a copy.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). The party’s objections must be both timely
and specific to preserve an issue for review by the district court or appellate court. United
States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). If objections are
timely filed, the district judge must consider the objections, but will only set aside those
parts of the magistrate judge’s order which are “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). If objections are not timely filed, the firm waiver rule applies. See
Sinclair Wyoming Ref. Co. v. A & B Builders, Ltd., 989 F.3d 747, 781–83 (10th Cir. 2021)
(“the firm waiver rule applies when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s nondispositive ruling under Rule 72(a)”). “Under the firm waiver rule, a party who fails to
make a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s ruling waives appellate review of both the
factual and legal questions.” Id. at 781 n.23 (citations and alteration omitted); see also FED.
R. CIV. P. 72(a) (“A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected
to.”).

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2