Lacoy v. IAC

Filing 15

ORDER that the Objection 10 is OVERRULED, and the Order 8 is AFFIRMED. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 5/28/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:13-cv-00273-MOC-DCK
JAMES ANDREW LACOY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
Vs.
IAC,
Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of a non-dispositive Order issued
by Honorable David C. Keesler, United States Magistrate Judge, in this matter, denying
plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel in this private civil matter. Plaintiff has
filed objections to such Order.
The district court has authority to assign non-dispositive pretrial matters pending
before the court 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 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 Order as well as the objection, and has
determined that the Order of the magistrate judge is fully consistent with and supported
-1-

by current law. Based on such determination, the court will overrule the objection and
fully affirm the Order.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Objection (#10) is OVERRULED,
and the Order (#8) is AFFIRMED.

Signed: May 28, 2013

-2-