Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01184/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01184-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE BORDEN,

NO. CIV. S-02-1184 LKK/PAN P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

A. MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Defendant has moved for reconsideration of the magistrate

judge’s order of January 6, 2005, granting in part plaintiff’s

motion to compel.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) provides that non-dispositive

pretrial matters may be decided by a magistrate judge, subject

to reconsideration by the district judge. See also Local Rule

72-303(c). The district judge shall, upon reconsideration,

modify or set aside any part of the magistrate judge's order

which is "found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 

Id. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

Case 2:02-cv-01184-LKK -EFB Document 145 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Discovery motions are non-dispositive pretrial motions

within the scope of Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and

thus subject to the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law"

standard of review. Brown v. Wesley's Quaker Maid, Inc., 771

F.2d 952, 954 (6th Cir. 1985). "A finding is 'clearly

erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the

reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United

States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

The magistrate judge’s order was premised, inter alia, upon

his conclusion that it was implausible that defendant was

unaware of plaintiff’s request for admissions. It is true that

the magistrate judge erred in stating that the defendant sought

and received an order extending time to respond. The error is

irrelevant. The defendant asserts that he did not respond to

the May 7, motion “because it was premature and it lacked

merit.” The necessary implication is that the defendant read

the May 7 motion to compel and thus must have known of the

request for admissions.

The defendant’s motion to reconsider is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:02-cv-01184-LKK -EFB Document 145 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2