China National Building Materials Import and Export Corporation et al v. Murphy Overseas USA Astoria Forest Products, LLC et al

Filing 96

ORDER: The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Order 83 . See 2-page order attached. Signed on 3/4/2015 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CHINA NATIONAL BUILDING
MATERIALS IMPORT AND EXPORT
CORPORATION, a People's Republic of
China corporation; and CNBM FOREST
PRODUCTS (CANADA) LTD., a
Canadian corporation,

No. 03:14-cv-00746-ST

Plaintiffs,
v.
MURPHY OVERSEAS USA ASTORIA
FOREST PRODUCTS, LLC, an Oregon
limited liability company; MURPHY
OVERSEAS U.S.A. TIMBER AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, an Oregon
limited liability company; MURPHY
OVERSEAS U.S.A. HOLDINGS, LLC,

ORDER

Defendants.
HERNANDEZ, District Judge,
On January 20, 2015, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued an Order (#93) denying the Motion
to Intervene filed by Eduardo Amorin and several other "Proposed Intervenors." On January 22,
2015, the Proposed Intervenors filed objections to the Order. The matter is now before me
1 - ORDER

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
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 the Proposed Intervenors' objections and conclude they do not
provide a basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Order.
CONCLUSION
The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Order (83).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

day of

, 2015.

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge

2 - ORDER