Opinion
No. 3:14-cv-00628-PK
02-02-2015
PENDLETON WOOLEN MILLS, INC., Plaintiff, v. KRAFF'S MEN'S WEAR CO., INC., DANIEL P. JOHNSON, and JOHN DOE COMPANIES 1-20, Defendants.
ORDER HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge,
On November 21, 2014, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued an Order (#34) granting Plaintiff Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc.'s Motion (#23) to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Production of Documents. On December 5, 2014, Defendants Kraff's Men's Wear Co., Inc. and Daniel P. Johnson filed a Motion (#39) for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order Compelling Discovery. Plaintiff filed a Response (#43) on December 22, 2014. The matter is now before me pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
In accordance with Rule 72(a), "[w]hen a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The standard of review for an order with objections is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (applying the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review for nondispositive motions). If a ruling on a motion is not determinative of "a party's claim or defense," it is not dispositive and, therefore, is not subject to de novo review as are proposed findings and recommendations for dispositive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
I have carefully considered Defendants' objections and conclude they do not provide a basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Order.
CONCLUSION
The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Papak's Order (#34).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 2 day of February, 2015.
/s/_________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge