Opinion
CV-20-08284-PCT-DLR (MTM)
04-19-2022
Maddi Jeffrey Aaron Moore, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge.
On September 22, 2021, the Court issued an order that, among other things, overruled Petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Morrissey's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), accepted the R&R, dismissed Petitioner's second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and directed Petitioner “must not file any further documents in this case except to seek a stay, amend the pleadings, or in furtherance of an appeal.” (Doc. 76 at 7-8.) On March 21, 2022, Petitioner filed a document titled “Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order USCS Fed Rules Civ. Proc. 60(b)(3) Misconduct.” (Doc. 107.) That same day, Magistrate Judge Morrissey issued an order striking Petitioner's filing because “it is not among those permitted under” the Court's September 2021 order. (Doc. 108.) Petitioner now appeals Magistrate Judge Morrissey's order striking Petitioner's latest filing. (Doc. 110.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may object to a non-dispositive order issued by a magistrate judge within 14 days after being served with a copy of the order. The Court must consider timely objections and may modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Petitioner fails to show that Magistrate Judge Morrissey's order striking Petitioner's latest motion is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. On the contrary, Petitioner's latest motion clearly is not a motion to stay, a motion to amend the pleadings, or a motion filed in furtherance of an appeal, and therefore was properly stricken because the filing was not authorized by this Court's September 2021 order. Petitioner argues that the Court's September 2021 order is too restrictive, but Petitioner has not sought reconsideration of that order (issued six months before Petitioner filed the instant appeal), and the time for doing so has long since passed. Petitioner instead has objected to Magistrate Judge Morrissey's order striking her latest filing, and there is nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to law about that discrete ruling.
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's appeal of Magistrate Judge Morrissey's March 21, 2022 order (Doc. 110) is DENIED.