Harris v. Montoya

Full title: Jason Lee Harris, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Montoya, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Apr 9, 2019

No. CV-18-02860-PHX-JAT (CDB) (D. Ariz. Apr. 9, 2019)

Opinion

No. CV-18-02860-PHX-JAT (CDB)

04-09-2019

Jason Lee Harris, Plaintiff, v. Unknown Montoya, et al., Defendants.

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion to Object to Magistrate Judge Burns' denying of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant." (Doc. 47).¹ In his Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff seeks $3,500,000.00 in sanctions against Defendants for making a factual assertion on summary judgment with which Plaintiff disagrees. (Doc. 42).

1 To the extent Plaintiff was also objecting to the Magistrate Judge's denial of his motion to recuse, that issue is moot because this case was referred to a different Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 48).

In nondispositive matters, a district judge "must consider timely² objections and modify or set aside any part of the [magistrate judge's] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). As to the clearly erroneous standard, the Court will overturn a Magistrate Judge's decision only if it is the result of "clear error." Maisonville v. F2 America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Under this standard of review, the Magistrate Judge's decision is "not subject to de novo determination," and the Court "may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court." Grimes v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). To find clear error, the Court must have a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001).

2 A party must serve and file its objections to an order within 14 days after being served with a copy of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). --------

Here, the Magistrate Judge ruled that Plaintiff's remedy for disagreeing with a factual assertion made by Defendant on summary judgment was to oppose the summary judgment motion. (Doc. 46 at 2). The summary judgment motion remains pending. On this record, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there is no basis for Rule 11 sanctions. (Id.).

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Magistrate Judge is affirmed and the "Motion to Object" (Doc. 47) is denied.

Dated this 9th day of April, 2019.

/s/_________

James A. Teilborg

Senior United States District Judge