Maney v. Persson

Filing 62

ORDER: The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Order (# 57 )denying Petitioner's Motion (# 48 ) for Discovery. Signed on 1/23/2017 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (jtj)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 6:15-CV-00259-JE PAUL JULIAN MANEY, Petitioner, ORDER v. ROB PERSSON, Respondent. BROWN, Judge. On November 21, 2016, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued an Order (#57) denying Petitioner Paul Julian Maney's Motion (#48) for Discovery. Petitioner filed Objections to the Order. The matter is now before this Court 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." 1 - ORDER The standard of review for an order with objections is ''clearly erroneous'' or "contrary to law." See also 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 the de nova review that is required for proposed findings and recommendations that address dispositive motions. See Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B). This Court has carefully considered Petitioner's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Order. This Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de nova and does not find any error. CONCLUSION The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Order (#57) denying Petitioner's Motion (#48) for Discovery. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ;L8'1' day of January, 2017. ?..:::.".:} AN~~ 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?