Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01947/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01947-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Selena Alicia Coronado, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV04-1947-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On August 4, 2005, Defendants filed Objections to Portions of Magistrate’s

July 22, 2005 Scheduling Order. See Doc. #14. Defendants purport to file the Objections

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and ask the Court to vacate certain portions of Judge

Velasco’s scheduling order. The Court was not aware of Defendants’ filing. Defendants

did not submit a courtesy copy of the filing as required by the Court’s Administrative

Policies and Procedures Manual, Policy on Courtesy Copies for Chambers, at 11. The

Court learned of the filing from a law clerk for the Magistrate Judge.

Defendants cannot seek relief from the order under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), a

provision that applies to findings and recommendations prepared by the Magistrate Judge

and submitted to the Court. The scheduling order does not constitut e such findings and

recommendations. If relief is to be sought from the scheduling order, it must be sought

under § 636(b)(1)(A), which permits magistrate judges to rule on certain pretrial matters and

provides that the Court “may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A)

Case 2:04-cv-01947-DGC-BPV Document 23 Filed 01/24/06 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 -

where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary

to law.” 

Defendant s contend that the scheduling order is inconsistent with scheduling

orders in other cases and places an unfair burden on Defendants. They do not argue t hat

the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, as required by the statute. Because

Defendants have not sought relief under the proper statutory provision, do not address

the proper legal standard, and have not shown that the scheduling order violates that legal

standard, the Court will deny relief.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Objections to Portions of Magistrate’s July 22,

2005 Scheduling Order (Doc. #14) is denied.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01947-DGC-BPV Document 23 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2