Opinion
CV 22-08140-PCT-JAT (JFM)
01-23-2023
Gerald Vaughn Gwen, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
JAMES A. TELIBORG, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Objections to Notice of Renewed Service of Certificate of Service (Doc. 21), which this Court construes as an Appeal of Magistrate Judge Metcalf's order granting a motion for renewed service and an extension of time. (Doc. 17). This Court now rules on this appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff's appeal of the Magistrate Judge's decision stems out of the alleged failure of Defendant's to serve him with a timely answer. (See Doc. 21). Despite the Certificate of Service attached to the answer showing that it was mailed on December 5, 2022, Plaintiff, on December 16, complained to the Magistrate Judge that he had not yet received it. (See Doc. 16). The magistrate judge construed that as a motion for renewed service and for an extension of time. (Doc. 17). Both motions were granted. (See id.). Plaintiff appealed this order claiming that it misconstrued his request and that his Due Process rights were being violated. (Doc. 21).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 states that a district judge “must ... modify or set aside any part of [an] ... order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” F.R.C.P. 72. Under Rule 72(a), for factual conclusions this Court must apply a clear error standard. See Adams v. Symetra Life Insurance Co., No. CV-18-00378, 2020 WL 6469949, *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 3, 2020). This means that after a review of all the evidence “the Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001). This is a very high standard that is only met when the factual error committed is clear and obvious. As the Ninth Circuit noted, if the Magistrate Judge's findings are “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety” this Court cannot reverse, “even if it is convinced it would have found differently.” See Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002).
For conclusions of law, however, the standard is de novo review. Rule 72(a) simply uses the phrase “contrary to law.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Thus, this Court must engage in a de novo review of the underlying claim to assess whether the magistrate judge applied the incorrect law or applied the correct law inaccurately. See Adams, No. CV-18-00378, 2020 WL 6469949 at *1 (noting that “[a] magistrate judge's legal conclusions are contrary to law when they omit or misapply the relevant law.”); See also 28 U.S.C. § 636 (“A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter ... where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”).
III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's order contained neither clear errors of fact nor anything contrary to law.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Gerald Vaughn Gwen's objection (Doc. 21) to the Magistrate Judge's order is OVERRULED.