Drozd v. City of Portland, et al
ORDER: The Court Affirms Magistrate Judge Russo's Order 50 . Signed on 1/17/19 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JEFFREY McDANIEL, LARRY GRAHAM,
And KYLE SMITH, as individuals, CITY OF
PORTLAND, and MULTNOMAH COUNTY,
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
On December 4, 2018, Magistrate Judge Russo issued an Order  granting
Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel . On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to
the 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 provide a
basis to modify the Magistrate Judge’s Order.
The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Russo’s Order .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
day of ____________________, 2019.
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
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?