Opinion
Case No. 2:03-CV-1088 TS.
August 2, 2005
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDERS
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's December 20, 2004 Order Denying Motion to Extend Time and December 22, 2004 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Extend Time.
For non-dispositive pretrial matters, this court reviews the Magistrate Judge's Orders under a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under the clearly erroneous standard, this court will affirm the Magistrate Judge's ruling "unless it `on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Industries, 847 F.2d 1458, (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting U.S. v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Courts recognize that wide discretion is given the magistrate judge in discovery rulings. Soma Med. Int'l v. Standard Chartered Bank, 196 F.3d 1292, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff does not allege that the Magistrate Judge's Orders are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Instead, Plaintiff contends that there is a disparity of treatment between the parties and argues that the Orders should "at least have the same result — either denying them both or granting them both." Pl.'s Obj at 3.
Upon review, this court finds that the December 20, 2004 Order Denying Motion to Extend Time involves Plaintiff's request to extend the discovery deadline after the deadline had expired. In his eight-page Order, the Magistrate Judge cited the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure, summarized the relevant facts and found that there was no "good cause" or "excusable neglect" which would justify the extension of the discovery deadline. This court finds no error in the analysis or finding.
The December 22, 2004 Order granted Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to file its Motion for Summary Judgment from January 4, 2005, to January 10, 2005. The Motion to Extend Time for filing the summary judgment motion was filed prior to expiration of the deadline and the extension sought was brief. The court finds no error in the December 22, 2004 Order.
Based upon the foregoing, it is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's December 20, 2004 Order Denying Motion to Extend Time and December 22, 2004 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Extend Time are OVERRULED and the same are AFFIRMED.