Shah v. Meier Enterprises, Inc., et al
ORDER: I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude they do not/do provide a basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Opinion & Order. The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Order 27 . Signed on 8/1/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jtj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
SHANTUBHAI N. SHAH,
MEIER ENTERPRISES, INC., a Washington
Corporation, et al.,
HERNANDEZ, District Judge,
On June 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued an Opinion & Order (#27), in which
he denied Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to state court and denied Plaintiff's motion for
entry of default. On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the Opinion & Order. 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
1 - ORDER
"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/do provide a
basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Opinion & Order.
The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Order .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge
2 - ORDER
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?