Opinion
2:19-cv-01102-SB
06-09-2022
JAMES CHARLES FUDGE, Plaintiff, v. BRET BENNETT et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued an Order [ECF 149] denying Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF 145]. Plaintiff James Charles Fudge objects to that order [ECF 151], Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman and DENY Plaintiffs Objections [ECF 151].
DISCUSSION
A magistrate judge in a civil action is permitted “to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, ... to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) (“When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a parly's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision.”); LR 72-1. When a magistrate judge decides a matter under § 636(b)(1)(A), a district judge may reconsider the magistrate's order if the order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Similarly, under Rule 72(a), “[t]he 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.”
Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's Order [ECF 149], and I ADOPT it as my own. Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF 145] is DENIED. Plaintiffs Objections [ECF 151] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.