Critical Nurse Staffing v. Four Corners Health Care
Filing
149
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER overruling Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision re 124 Memorandum Decision/Order on 105 , 109 Motions to Compel. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 6/13/16 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CRITICAL NURSE STAFFING, INC.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING
OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE DECISION
Plaintiff,
v.
FOUR CORNERS HEALTH CARE
CORPORATION, a Utah Corporation,
FOUR CORNERS HEALTH CARE - NM,
LLC, a New Mexico Limited Liability
Company,
Case No. 2:13-CV-646 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Objection of Magistrate Judge Decision.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court will overrule the objection.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court reviews a Magistrate Judge’s orders on nondispositive matters under a clearly
erroneous or contrary to law standard. 1 “The clearly erroneous standard . . . requires that the
reviewing court affirm unless it ‘on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” 2
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Order, Defendants’ objection
thereto, the underlying briefing, and the relevant case law. Having done so, the Court cannot
conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Further,
1
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
2
Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
1
many of the specific arguments raised in Defendants’ objection were not presented to the
Magistrate Judge and were raised for the first time in the objection. These arguments are
deemed waived. 3 It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ objection (Docket No. 132) is OVERRULED. Defendants
are directed to respond to Plaintiff’s Production Request No. 14, as amended by the Magistrate
Judge, within ten (10) days of this Order.
Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs in having to file its response to
Defendants’ objection is DENIED.
DATED this 13th day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
3
Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996).
2
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?