Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-1992-D
June 24, 2003
ORDER
Defendant Phillip B. Beliows ("Dr. Bellows") appeals the magistrate Judge's May 20, 2003 order granting plaintiff's April 18, 2003 motion to compel. The court affirms the order.
This court has frequently set out the standards that govern appeals from magistrate judge discovery rulings. The court reviews these rulings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), which provides that the court "shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id. "The `clearly erroneous' standard applies to the factual components of the magistrate Judge's decision." Lahr v. Fulbright Jaworski, L.L.P., 164 F.R.D. 204, 208 (N.D. Tex. 1996, (Fitzwater, J.) (quoting Smith v. Smith, 154 F.R.D. 661, 665 (M.D. Tex. 1994) (Fitzwater, J.)). "[T]he district court may not disturb a factual finding of the magistrate judge `unless, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."' Id. (quoting Smith, 154 F.R.D. at 665; RTC v. Sands, 151 F.R.D. 616, 618 (N.D. Tex. 1993) (Fitzwater, J.) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985))). "If a magistrate judge's `account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety,' a district judge may not reverse it." Id. (quoting Smith, 154 F.R.D. at 665; RTC v. Sands, 151 F.R.D. at 618). The magistrate judge's legal conclusions are freely reviewable. Id. The district judge applies a de novo standard, and reverses if the magistrate judge errs in some respect in his legal conclusions. Id. "[T]he abuse of discretion standard governs review of `that vast area of . . . choice that remains to the [magistrate judge] who has properly applied the law to fact findings that are not clearly erroneous.'" Lahr, 164 F.R.D. at 208 (quoting Smith, 154 F.R.D. at 665; In re REPH Acquisition Co., 134 B.R. 194, 202-03 (N.D. Tex. 1991) (Fitzwater, J.)).
Dr. Bellows' brief is written as if this court were ruling on the motion to compel as a matter of first impression. He makes no attempt to demonstrate reversible error under one of the applicable standards. In fact, he does net cite the standards or relate them to his assertions of error. When a party appeals a magistrate judge's order, he must demonstrate how the order is reversible under the applicable standard of review — de novo for error of law, clear error for fact findings, or abuse of discretion for discretionary matters. He is not free simply to argue anew the grounds that the magistrate judge has rejected unless he is addressing an issue of law that is to be reviewed de nova.
Because Dr. Bellows has not met his burden, the magistrate judge's May 20, 2003 order granting plaintiff's April 18, 2003 motion to compel is
AFFIRMED.