Fisher v. Winding Waters Clinic, PC et al

Filing 61

ORDER: The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Order 53 . Signed on 10/22/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (See 2 page Order) (sss)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CASSI C. FISHER as Guardian ad Litem for X.S.F., a minor, No. 2:15-cv-01957-SU Plaintiff, v. WINDING WATERS CLINIC, PC, an Oregon corporation; ELIZABETH POWERS, M.D.; KEITH DeYOUNG, M.D.; and RENEE GRANDI, M.D., ORDER Defendants. HERNANDEZ, District Judge, On February 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued an Opinion & Order (#53) in which she denied Defendants' Motion to Compel Genetic Testing and Amended Motion to Compel Genetic Testing. On February 23, 2017, Defendants filed objections to the Order. On August 10, 2017, the matter was referred to me pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). In accordance with Rule 72(a), "[w]hen a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim 1 - ORDER or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The standard of review for an order with objections is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (applying the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review for nondispositive motions). If a ruling on a motion is not determinative of "a party's claim or defense," it is not dispositive and, therefore, is not subject to de novo review as are proposed findings and recommendations for dispositive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). I have carefully considered Defendants' objections and conclude they do not provide a basis to modify Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Order. CONCLUSION The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Sullivan's Order [53]. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this day of MARCO A. HERNANDEZ United States District Judge 2 - ORDER , 2017.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?