Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01305/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01305-11/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW JENNINGS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. MORELAND, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:08-cv-01305-HDM-RAM

ORDER

The plaintiff has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s

order denying his motions to compel and for sanctions (#64). At a

hearing on February 19, 2010, defense counsel admitted that

discovery deadlines have not been met. In response, the magistrate

judge ordered that defense counsel conduct a telephonic conference

with plaintiff by March 5, 2010, during which the parties should

attempt to resolve as many of the issues identified in plaintiff’s

motion to compel as possible. The magistrate judge further ordered

that on or before March 12, 2010, defense counsel file with the

Case 2:08-cv-01305-MCE-CKD Document 65 Filed 03/02/10 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

27

28

2

court a notice identifying the discovery disputes that remain. A

hearing was set for March 19, 2010, during which the magistrate

judge would resolve the remaining discovery disputes. In light of

these orders, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion to

compel and his motion for sanctions.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge may

issue an order regarding any motion that is not dispositive of the

case. This court may reconsider a magistrate judge’s order

regarding a pretrial matter where “it has been shown that the

magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

The magistrate judge’s order denying plaintiff’s motions to

compel and for sanctions was not clearly erroneous or contrary to

the law, particularly in view of the fact that the discovery

disputes are still in the process of being resolved. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s objection to the magistrate judge’s order (#64) is

hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This 1st day of March, 2010.

____________________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01305-MCE-CKD Document 65 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2