Johnson v. The Sunshine House, Inc.

Filing 49

ORDER Overruling 48 Response.; Affirming 47 Order.. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 11/13/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11cv511
RHAE JOHNSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
Vs.
THE SUNSHINE HOUSE, INC.,
Defendant.
_______________________________

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of pro se plaintiff’s “Response to
Magistrate Order” (#48), which appears to be an objection to the non-dispositive Order (#47)
entered by Judge David C. Keesler, United States Magistrate Judge, the day before such
objection was filed. The Order of the magistrate judge simply denies the plaintiff’s Motion
to Quash (#42) and requires the parties to file proposed revisions to the Pretrial order on or
before November 20, 2012.

In this court’s most recent Order overruling plaintiff’s

objections to a favorable M&R, the undersigned stated:
Plaintiff is now clearly and explicitly warned that the consequences of
further failures to obey court orders, failure to attend her deposition, or failure
to provide properly requested discovery, could result in the imposition of
sanctions, including dismissal of her case with prejudice.
Order (#46), at 4.
In considering plaintiff’s response as an objection, this court has the authority to
assign non-dispositive pretrial matters pending before it to a magistrate judge to “hear and
determine.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). When reviewing an objection to a magistrate judge's
order on a non-dispositive matter, the district court must set aside or modify any portion of
that order which is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). To show that

-1-

a magistrate judge's order is contrary to law, the objecting party must show that the
magistrate judge failed to apply or misapplied statutes, case law, or procedural rules. See
Catskill Dev. LLC v. Park Place Entm't Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2002).
The court has carefully reviewed the challenged Order (#47) as well as the objection,
and has determined that the Order of the magistrate judge is fully consistent with and
supported by current law. Indeed, such determinations are fully consistent with current law
as it is well within the authority of a United States Magistrate Judge to amend the Pretrial
Order as he sees fit and to require plaintiff to attend her own deposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 &
26. Based on such determination, the court will overrule the objection and fully affirm the
Order.
ORDER
IT

IS,

THEREFORE,

ORDERED

that

plaintiff’s

Objection

OVERRULED, and the Order (#47) is AFFIRMED.

Signed: November 13, 2012

-2-

(#48)

is