FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 11, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 51 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -0 13 16 -CAP JOHNNY TRAYLOR, Dis ab le d Vi etna m

Vete ran , Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ver su s KRISTEN MILLER HOWARD, bo th in di vi du al ly andin he r cap aci ty l as Clo si ng Att orne y

forW el ls Farg o B an k # 7, CRIS TINA CORREIA, bo th in di vi du al ly andin he r cap aci ty as Att orne y , ALICIA MOON, bo th in di vi du al ly andin he r cap aci ty of Cas h Man ag em en t fo r W el ls Farg o B an k Ho m e Mo rtg ag e, MERI ANDERSON MC CLINTOCK, bo th in di vi du al ly andin he r cap aci ty as Sal es Man ag er fo r W el ls Farg o Ho m e Mo rtg ag e, Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 11 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .
PER CURI AM: Jo hn ny Tray lo r, pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di stric t co urt’s af firm an ce o f th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s ord er t o c on so li da te Tray lo r’s cas es . No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af

firm . InDecem be r 20 09 , Tray lo r fi le d apro se c iv il co m pl ai ntall eg in g tha t m an y W el ls Farg o e m

pl oyees a ndGeor gi a o ffi ci al s d ep riv edhi m of h is rig ht s u nd er m an y fed eral st atut es an d c on st itut io na l p ro vi si on s. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d Defen da nt s’ m ot io ns fora m or e d efi ni te st at em en t an d o rd eredTray lo r to rep le ad hi s co m pl ai ntwit hi n 1 4 d ay s. Traylorfil eda ne w pro se c iv il co m pl ai nt , whi ch in cl ud eda ci vi l co ve r sh eet , an app li cat io n t o p ro ceedin form a p aupe ris , anda co m pl ai nt . The d is tri ctco urt g av e th is co m pl ai nta ne w cas e num

be r. Bu t t he m ag is tra te , con st ru in g t he ne w com pl ai ntas a n a tt em

ptto co m pl y wit h t he di stric t co urt’s o rd er t o re pl ead , con cl ud edth atTray lo r ha d n otin te nd ed 2to fil e a n ew cas e. The m ag is tra te ord eredth e cl erkto clo se adm in is tra ti ve ly the

ne w cas e an d t ran sf

er the pl ead in gs to th e 2 00 9 c as e. Tray lo r ap pe al edth e m ag is tra te ’s ord er; an d t he di st ric t co urt af firm ed , con cl ud in g t ha t Traylo r ha d n ot m ethi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atth e m ag is tra te ’s ord er was cle arl y erro ne ou s o r co nt rary to l aw. On ap pe al , Tray lo r arg ue s t ha t t he ord er was co nt rary to l aw an d th athe di d i nt en d t o fi le a ne w cas e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s t reat m en t o f a m ag is tra te ’s ord er fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Will ia m s v . McNei l, 5 57 F.3d12 87 , 12 90 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). Whe n a pa rty ob jects to a m ag is tra te ’s no n- di sp os it iv e o rd er, the di st ric t co urt m us t co ns id er tho se “ ob

jecti on s an d m od ify or s etasi de an y pa rt o f th e o rd er tha t i s cl earl y erro ne ou s o r is co nt rary to l aw.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 72 (a); 28 U.S.C. § 63 6( b) (1 )(A). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s co ns ol id at io n o f cas es foranab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e You ng v. Ci ty of Aug us t, Ga., 5 9 F .3d11 60 , 11 69 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). The di stric t co urt ab us edno di sc ret io n i n a ffi rm in g t he m ag is tra te ’s ord er t o co ns ol id at e Traylor’s ca se s b ecau se co ns ol id at io n was pro pe r. Tray lo r’s se co nd co m pl ai ntals o a ll eg edth atW el ls Farg o e m pl oyees andGeor gi a o ffi ci al s d ep riv ed hi m of r ig ht s u nd er fe de ral st atut es an d c on st itut io na l p ro vi si on s. Bo th co m pl ai nt s refe rredto ho us in g d is cri m in at io n. Th us , th es e cas es “ si m ul ta ne ou sl y

pe nd in g i n 3th e sa m e co urt” in vo lv edm an y of t he same part ie s an d i ss ue s; an d c on so li da ti on was pro pe r. See Har ge ttv. Val le y Fed . Sav . Ban k, 6 0 F .3d75 4, 7 65 -6 6 (ex pl ai ni ng th atco ns ol id at io n i s t he “pr op er s ol ut io n t o p ro bl em s cr eat edby the ex is te nc e o f two or m or e cas es in vo lv in g t he same part ie s an d i ss ue s, si m ul ta ne ou sl y

pe nd in g i n t he same cou rt” ); s ee al so Fed .R.Ci v.P . 42 (a)( 2) (a co urt m ay co ns ol id at e cas es on it s d oc ke t i f th e cas es “ in vo lv e a co m m on qu es ti on of law o r fac t” ). Tray lo r’s co nt en ti on th athe in te nd edto fil e a n ew co m pl ai ntis un av ai li ng . Inth e se co ndco m

pl ai nt , Tray lo r st at edsev eral ti m es th atth e co m pl ai ntwas “ in di rectres po ns e to ” th e o rd er t o re pl eadhi s co m pl ai ntin hi s 2 00 9 c as e. AFFIR MED.

4