Slaughter v. White et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 65 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order; Because the deadline to file a more definite statement has passed, the Court amends the deadline to November 14, 2017, signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Ossie Slaughter, Prisoner ID: 827869)(SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER, 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 12 13 14 CASE NO. C16-1067 RSM-JPD ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER DAN WHITE, et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ossie L. Slaughter’s “Objection to the 15 Magistrate Judge’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement.” Dkt. #65. 16 On August 17, 2017, an Order was issued by the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States 17 Magistrate Judge, directing Plaintiff to file, no later than October 2, 2017, a more definite 18 statement detailing his claims against only the five remaining defendants remaining in this action. 19 See Dkt. #62. Plaintiff brings this Motion under Rule 72(a). Rule 72(a) allows a party whose case 20 is before a magistrate judge to “serve and file objections” to an order addressing nondispositive 21 matters. These objections are to be heard by the district judge in the case, who is to “modify or set 22 aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 23 24 ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER - 1 1 Plaintiff offers much argument about the merits of his case, but does not adequately explain 2 why the underlying Magistrate Judge’s Order is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” See Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 72 (a). Plaintiff argues that requiring a more definite statement “would also cause Mr. 4 Slaughter, and his civil complaint undue prejudices, and allows the defendant’s [sic] and their 5 coworkers the opportunities [sic] to continue retaliating against Mr. Slaughter…” Dkt. #65 at 12. 6 Plaintiff need not present arguments about the merits of his case at this juncture—he must 7 set forth why the Magistrate Judge’s Order directing Plaintiff to file a more definite statement is 8 clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff has failed to do so. The Court is not convinced that 9 being required to file a more definite statement limited to claims against the remaining Defendants 10 could cause undue prejudice to Plaintiff. To the contrary, it should aid everyone involved by 11 moving the case forward more quickly. The Court has reviewed Judge Donohue’s Order and finds 12 no basis to modify or set it aside. 13 Accordingly, having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached 14 thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff 15 Slaughter’s “Objection to Magistrate Order,” Dkt. #65, is DENIED. Because the deadline to file a 16 more definite statement has passed, the Court amends the deadline to November 14, 2017. The 17 remainder of Judge Donohue’s Order, Dkt. #62, remains in effect. This matter continues to be 18 referred to Judge Donohue. 19 20 21 22 Dated this 24 day of October, 2017. A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER - 1

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?