Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180402_0000440.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:45:52+00:00

Document:
MEEKER HOUSING AUTHORITY, a Property Management Company, MELINDA PARKER, MICHELLE BUCKLER, EDY GEORGE, and, STACIE KINCHER, Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Orders Granting MHA Defendants' Motion to Compel Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 Psychiatric Examinations and MHA Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Serve IME Reports” (“Objection”). (ECF No. 240.) The Objection refers to two of United States Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher's orders filed on August 8, 2017. (See ECF Nos. 234 & 235.) Defendants filed no response. For the reasons set forth below the Court overrules the Objection.
“Discovery is a nondispositive matter . . . .” Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 562, 566 (10th Cir. 1997). When reviewing an objection to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive ruling, the Court must affirm the ruling unless it finds that the ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Ariza v. U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 131, 133 (D. Colo. 1996). The clearly erroneous standard “requires that the reviewing court affirm unless it on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). The “contrary to law” standard permits “plenary review as to matters of law, ” see 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3069 (2d ed., Apr. 2016 update), but the Court will set aside a magistrate judge's order only if it applied the wrong legal standard or applied the appropriate legal standard incorrectly, see Wyoming v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 239 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1236 (D. Wyo. 2002). In short, “[b]ecause a magistrate judge is afforded broad discretion in the resolution of non-dispositive . . . disputes, the court will overrule the magistrate judge's determination only if his discretion is abused.” Ariza, 167 F.R.D. at 133.
• Defendants had not demonstrated good cause to conduct IMEs of A.J. White and McFadden.

References: v. 
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3069
 v.