Glenn v. Moss et al

Filing 105

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER affirming Magistrate Judge's 81 Order denying 75 and 76 Motions. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 12/20/16 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ENDRE GLENN,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER

v.
Case No. 2:15-cv-165-DN-BCW
BRENNAN H. MOSS and PIA ANDERSON
DORIUS REYNARD & MOSS, LLC,

District Judge David Nuffer

Defendants.
Plaintiff Endre Glenn filed an objection 1 to the order issued by Magistrate Judge Brooke
Wells 2 denying Mr. Glenn’s motions for leave to file a motion to compel 3 and to extend
discovery deadlines. 4 In his objection, Mr. Glenn argues that the magistrate judge should have
granted his motions because he is having difficulty meeting the deadlines.
The Order clearly explains that deadline extensions have been liberally granted to Mr.
Glenn in the past due to his status as a pro se litigant. But the magistrate judge found that Mr.
Glenn’s recent request to extend deadlines was not supported by the required good cause.
Further, the Tenth Circuit “has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants.” 5
Under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he district judge in the case
must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
1

Objection to Magistrate’s “Order” Denying Plaintiffs [sic] Motions (Objection), docket no. 82, filed September 30,
2016.
2

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions (Order), docket no. 81, filed September 23, 2016.

3

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Compel Discovery, docket no. 75, filed August 9, 2016.

4

Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery for Expert Witness Reports and Dispositive Motions, docket no. 76, filed
August 16, 2016.
5

Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).

erroneous or is contrary to law.” In his objection, Mr. Glenn does not argue or even point out
how the Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Instead, he reargues the same issues
presented to the magistrate judge, expecting a different result.
ORDER
Because the magistrate judge’s Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the
objection 6 is OVERRULED and the order is AFFIRMED.

Signed December 20, 2016.
BY THE COURT

________________________________________
District Judge David Nuffer

6

Docket no. 82.

2