Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08070/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08070-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 This is the accurate name of the defendant formerly knows as Prison

Health Services, Inc., as more fully explained in this court’s recent order. See

Ord. (Doc. 66) at 1-2. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Jackson Ellsworth, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-11-8070-PCT-RCB-MEA

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Corizon Health, Inc.,1 )

et al. )

Defendants. ) )

Currently pending before the court are two motions filed

by plaintiff pro se, James Jackson Ellsworth, wherein he is

seeking “review” of two orders issued by the Honorable United

States Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey (“the Magistrate Judge”). 

See Mots. (Docs. 65 and 67). 

Background

Plaintiff is an inmate housed at the Mohave County Jail

(“the Jail”), alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment

Case 3:11-cv-08070-JAJ Document 69 Filed 04/16/12 Page 1 of 6
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 As explained in Ellsworth v. Prison Health Services, CV-11-8070,

actually, plaintiff was seeking to add non-parties to this action. See Ord. (Doc.

66) at 2, n.2. 

- 2 -

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. More

specifically, plaintiff alleges that he was denied certain

medical treatment relating to his diagnosis of multiple

sclerosis, allegedly because the Jail’s protocol did not

allow it. See Co. (Doc. 1) at 3, ¶ 3. 

By order entered February 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge

denied four motions by plaintiff. On March 16, 2012,

plaintiff filed a motion for “review” of that Order, directed

to three of those four motions. See Mot. (Doc. 65). In

particular, plaintiff is challenging the Magistrate Judge’s

denial of his motions to: (1) compel compliance with a

subpoena directed to a non-party entity (Doc. 43); (2) extend

the time for completion of discovery (Doc. 48); and (3)

“‘join’ parties2 to this matter[.]” Ord. (Doc. 56) at 1:24. 

Additionally, plaintiff seeks review of the Magistrate

Judge’s order, filed March 7, 2012, denying plaintiff’s

motions to compel compliance with subpoenas duces tecum

directed to three other non-party entities (Docs. 41; 44; and

45). See Ord. (Doc. 63) at 4:4-10. On April 3, 2012,

plaintiff filed a separate motion seeking “[r]eview” of that

order. Mot. (Doc. 67) at 1:9. 

Discussion

With one exception, all of the rulings to which plaintiff

objects directly pertain to discovery. Hence, those rulings

are non-dispositive matters within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P.

Case 3:11-cv-08070-JAJ Document 69 Filed 04/16/12 Page 2 of 6
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

- 3 -

72(a). See Gabriel Tech. Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 2012 WL

849167, at *2 (S.D.Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) (citing Maisonville v.

F2Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990)) (“Discovery

orders are ordinarily considered non-dispositive because they

do not have the effect of dismissing a cause of action.”) 

Plaintiff’s challenge to the denial of his motion to “join

parties” also is non-dispositive as it is not among the eight

types of motions explicitly excluded from determination by 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Nor is that motion “analogous to a

motion listed in th[at] [excepted] category[.]” See United

States v. River-Guerrero, 377 F.3d 1064, at 1067 (9th Cir.

2004) (citation omitted) (emphasis omitted). Thus,

plaintiff’s joinder motion “falls within the non-dispositive

group of matters which a magistrate may determine.” See id.

at 1068 (citation omitted). Given the non-dispositive status

of the motions which plaintiff Ellsworth is challenging, Rule

72(a) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(A) provide the governing legal standards. 

I. Timeliness

Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, “[a] party may serve and file objections to [a]

[nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge] within

14 days after being served with a copy[]” of that order. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). “The district judge in the case must

consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of

the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” 

Id. (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“A

judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under

Case 3:11-cv-08070-JAJ Document 69 Filed 04/16/12 Page 3 of 6
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

3 In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(A), February 23, 2012, the

entry date of the order, is excluded from computing plaintiff’s time to file

objections. Beginning to count on February 24, 2012, and adding three days for

service pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d), means that the 14 day time frame ended on

March 11, 2012. Because March 11, 2012, was a Sunday, that time frame is extended

until Monday, March 12, 2012. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(C). 

4 In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(A), March 7,, 2012, the entry

date of the order, is excluded from computing plaintiff’s time to file objections.

Beginning to count on March 8, 2012, and adding three days for service pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d), means that the 14 day time frame ended on March 24, 2012.

Because March 24, 2012, was a Saturday, that time frame is extended until Monday,

March 26, 2012. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(C). 

- 4 -

this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the

magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to

law.”) However, “[a] party may not assign as error a defect in

the order not timely objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). 

In the present case, the court construes plaintiff’s

motions for “review,” as objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

rulings on nondispositive matters, as Rule 72(a) allows. 

Plaintiff’s objections were not timely filed, however. As

just stated, objections pursuant to that Rule must be filed

and served within 14 days after being served with a copy of a

magistrate judge’s order. On March 26, 2012, plaintiff filed

his objections to the February 23, 2012 order. Computing the

time for service in accordance with Rule 6, plaintiff had

until March 12, 2012 in which to file his objections.3

Plaintiff did not meet that filing deadline though.

Plaintiff also did not meet the filing deadline with

respect to the Magistrate Judge’s March 7, 2012 order. 

Computing the time for service in accordance with Rule 6,

plaintiff had until March 26, 2012 in which to file his

objections to that order.4 Yet, plaintiff did not file his

objections until April 3, 2010. Untimeliness alone is a

Case 3:11-cv-08070-JAJ Document 69 Filed 04/16/12 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

sufficient basis for denying both of plaintiff’s motions for

“review.” See Matthewson v. Ryan, 2012 WL 510318, at *2

(D.Ariz. Feb. 16, 2012) (citing, inter alia, Simpson v. Lear

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.1996)) (“The

absence of a timely objection precludes later assignment of

error in this court or in any higher court of the

non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge.”)

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:

(1) “Plaintiff’s Motion for District Court review of

Magistrate[’]s Order” (Doc. 65) is DENIED; and

(2) “Plaintiff’s motion for District Court Review of

Magistrate[’]s Order (Doc. 67) is DENIED.

DATED this 16th day of April, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 3:11-cv-08070-JAJ Document 69 Filed 04/16/12 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

Case 3:11-cv-08070-JAJ Document 69 Filed 04/16/12 Page 6 of 6