Longshore v. Herzog et al
ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle denying 72 Objections filed by plaintiff.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Charles Longshore, Prisoner ID: #332121)(TG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
CHARLES S. LONGSHORE,
CASE NO. C16-5629BHS-JRC
ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS
ROBERT HERZOG, et al.,
This matter comes before the Court on the order of the Honorable J. Richard
14 Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 67), denying Plaintiff Charles
15 Longshore’s (“Longshore”) motion to appoint expert and Longshore’s objections to the
16 order (Dkt. 72).
On September 13, 2016, Longshore filed a motion to appoint expert witness. Dkt.
18 36. On October 24, 2016, Judge Creatura denied the motion. Dkt. 67. On October 31,
19 2016, Longshore filed objections. Dkt. 72.
A party may serve and file objections to a nondispositive order. The district judge
21 in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order
22 that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The determination
ORDER - 1
1 to appoint an expert rests solely in the court’s discretion. See Leford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d
2 354, 358–59 (9th Cir. 1997).
In this case, Longshore fails to show that Judge Creatura abused his discretion,
4 made a clearly erroneous finding, or made a conclusion that is contrary to law. Instead,
5 Longshore merely disagrees with the decision. Discovery has just begun, and the Court
6 is confident that, if it appears that an expert is required at any point during discovery or
7 dispositive motions, Judge Creatura will thoroughly consider the matter. However, at
8 this time, Longshore has failed to show that denial of an expert is inappropriate.
9 Therefore, the Court DENIES his objections.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 1st day of December, 2016.
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
ORDER - 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?