Opinion
Case No. 19-cr-185(2) (SRN/KMM)
02-27-2020
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. William Charles Graham (2), Defendant.
Amber Brennan and Justin Wesley, United States Attorney's Office, 600 U.S. Courthouse, 300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis, MN 55415, for the Government William Charles Graham, Reg. No. 22097-041, Sherburne County Jail, 13880 Business Center Dr. NW, Elk River, MN 55330, Pro Se Defendant Andrew Mohring, Office of the Federal Defender, 300 S. 4th St., 107 U.S. Courthouse, Minneapolis, MN 55415, Standby Counsel for Defendant
ORDER
Amber Brennan and Justin Wesley, United States Attorney's Office, 600 U.S. Courthouse, 300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis, MN 55415, for the Government William Charles Graham, Reg. No. 22097-041, Sherburne County Jail, 13880 Business Center Dr. NW, Elk River, MN 55330, Pro Se Defendant Andrew Mohring, Office of the Federal Defender, 300 S. 4th St., 107 U.S. Courthouse, Minneapolis, MN 55415, Standby Counsel for Defendant SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant William Charles Graham's "Rebuttal to Magistrate Judge Kate M. Menendez's 'Order Document #130,'" [Doc. No. 137]. The Court construes this as Graham's Objections to Magistrate Judge Menendez's February 10, 2020 Order [Doc. No. 130].
In the February 10, 2020 Order, Magistrate Judge Menendez addressed a number of pretrial discovery motions filed by the parties. (See Feb. 10, 2020 Order at 1-6.) Graham objects, on numerous bases, to many of the magistrate judge's rulings. (See Objections at 2-8.)
The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge's nondispositive order is extremely deferential. In reviewing an order from a magistrate judge, the Court must set aside portions of an order only if they are "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72.2(a)(3). Such an order is "clearly erroneous" when, after a thorough review of the record, the "court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008) (quoting Thorne v. Wyeth, No. 06-cv-3123 (PAM/JJG), 2007 WL 1455989, at * 1 (D. Minn. May 15, 2007)). The order is "contrary to law" when it "fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure." Id. (quoting Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1093 (N.D. Iowa 2008)).
The Court has carefully reviewed Graham's objections to the nondispositive February 10, 2020 Order and finds that none of the magistrate judge's rulings are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Graham's Objections [Doc. No. 137] are DENIED, and the February 10, 2020 Order [Doc. No. 130] is AFFIRMED. Dated: February 27, 2020
s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge