Opinion
3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB
09-16-2021
CENTENO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al. Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE ORDER [ECF 135]
Hon. M. James Lorenz United States District Judge
Pending before the Court in this civil rights action is Plaintiff's objection to Magistrate Judge Butcher's order that denied Plaintiff's request for sanctions. Defendants opposed. The Court decides the matter without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1.
Magistrate Judge Butcher issued the order on May 18, 2021. (ECF 130). Plaintiff filed his objection on June 7, 2021, after the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (See ECF 135). The Court therefore overrules the objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see, e.g., Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996) (“a party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its right to appellate review of that order.”)
Even so, Plaintiff failed to show Judge Butcher made a legal or factual error. The matter at issue is Plaintiff's (continued) assertion that Defendants altered video evidence. (ECF 130).[ It is serious. Yet there is no evidence to support it - as Judge Butcher determined after a thorough and careful review. For the reasons stated above, the Court OVERRULES the objection.
The motion for sanctions also involved allegations that Defendants failed to timely produce video evidence and their expert witness disclosure was improper. (ECF 130). But Plaintiff did not raise those issues here. (ECF 135).
IT IS SO ORDERED.