Shanafelt v. Hollander et al

Filing 47

ORDER: The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Orders 34 and 36 . See 2-page order attached. Signed on 2/25/2015 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
GREGORY A SHANAFELT,

No. 3:14-cv-01722-ST

Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID HOLLANDER, JEFF GERNER, of
SAIF CORP., THOMAS SHERIDAN of
EMPIRE PACIFIC RISK MANAGEMENT,
INC.,

ORDER

Defendant.
HERNANDEZ, District Judge,
On February 6, 2015, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued two Orders (#34, #36) in which
she struck Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery because Plaintiff is able to request documents from
the opposing parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (Order #34), and in which
she struck Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint because Plaintiff failed to failure to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) requiring either the opposing party's written
consent or the Court's leave prior to filing an amended complaint after the opposing parties have
appeared (Order #36).
1 - ORDER

On February 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Orders. The matter is now before
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
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 Plaintiff's objections and conclude they do not provide a basis
to modify the Magistrate Judge's Order.
CONCLUSION
The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Orders [34] and [36].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

day of

, 2015.

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge

2 - ORDER