Opinion
No. 99-4191-SAC.
October 2000.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the court on the plaintiff's motion (Dk. 40) to review the magistrate judge's order of September 12, 2000 (Dk. 32). In that order, the magistrate granted defendant's motion for an extension of time for certain pretrial deadlines, including the date for conducting an independent medical examination. The magistrate additionally and sua sponte extended the date by which the defendant was to file its final witness and exhibit list.
The caption of plaintiff's motion for review states that the magistrate's order was September 12, 2000. The body of plaintiff's motion erroneously states that the magistrate's order was September 20, 2000. The magistrate's order was dated September 11th, and was filed September 12, 2000. (Dk. 32).
As to nondispositive pretrial matters, the district court reviews the magistrate judge's order under a clearly erroneous or contrary to the law standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Continental Bank, N.A. v. Caton, 136 F.R.D. 691, 693 (D.Kan. 1991). "The clearly erroneous standard requires the district court to affirm the magistrate judge's order unless it has the definite and firm conviction from all the evidence that error has occurred. (citations omitted)." Id.
The court has reviewed the order appealed from, and the parties' briefs, and finds no error whatsoever in the magistrate's order filed September 12, 2000. The magistrate judge stated that he deemed "it necessary and appropriate to amend certain of the deadlines and settings previously established in this case, in order that this case is fairly decided on the merits, and in order to minimize any prejudice suffered by plaintiff as a result of defendant's voluntary decisions to change attorneys not once but twice during pretrial proceedings." (Dk. 32, p. 2). The findings made in that order were well within his discretion to make. The fact that the pretrial proceedings in this case are delayed by a couple of weeks does not substantially prejudice the plaintiff, and falls far short of showing an abuse of discretion or clear error by the magistrate.
The court is hard pressed to imagine a situation in which a magistrate's decision to grant a party additional time of a few weeks in which to conclude pretrial matters, whether on a party's motion or on its own initiative, will constitute an abuse of discretion. The court notes that this is not the first motion that the plaintiff has filed in this case seeking review of a magistrate's order extending time. Plaintiff is admonished that the court will disfavor any further motions for review of a magistrate's order extending time for pretrial proceedings in this or any other case, unless plaintiff can make the requisite showing.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate's order filed September 12, 2000 (Dk. 32) is affirmed, and that plaintiff's motion for review (Dk. 40) is denied.