Ross v. Blewett et al

Filing 98

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court has reviewed Judge Beckerman's orders, ECF Nos. 61 and 74, and concludes that Judge Beckerman's decision is not contrary to law nor is it clearly erroneous. Further, the objections raised by Plaintif f, ECF No. 76 , do not provide a basis to modify Judge Beckerman's order denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Signed on 1/18/2023 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL** (James Ross, Prisoner ID: 12599830) (ck)

Case 2:20-cv-01338-SB

Document 98

Filed 01/18/23

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PENDLETON DIVISION

JAMES ARTHUR ROSS,
Plaintiff,

Civ. No. 2:20-cv-01338-SB
OPINION & ORDER

v.
TYLER BLEWETT, et al,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to a non-dispositive order
issued by Judge Beckerman November 16, 2022, incorporating an earlier order issued June 7,
2022, denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF Nos. 61, 72, 74, 76.
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), “[w]hen a pretrial matter not
dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the
magistrate judgment must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue
a written order stating the decision.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The standard for review for a nondispositive order with objections is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Id.; 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).

Page 1 –OPINION & ORDER

Case 2:20-cv-01338-SB

Document 98

Filed 01/18/23

Page 2 of 2

The Court has reviewed Judge Beckerman’s orders, ECF Nos. 61 and 74, and concludes
that Judge Beckerman’s decision is not contrary to law nor is it clearly erroneous. Further, the
objections raised by Plaintiff, ECF No. 76, do not provide a basis to modify Judge Beckerman’s
order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this

18th

day of January, 2023.

/s/Ann Aiken
Ann Aiken
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 –OPINION & ORDER