From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wong v. Beebe

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 24, 2006
Civil No. 01-718-ST (D. Or. Mar. 24, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 01-718-ST.

March 24, 2006

Beth Ann Creighton, Zan E. Tewksbury, Thomas M. Steenson, STEENSON SCHUMANN TEWKSBURY CREIGHTON ROSE, PC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Kenneth C. Bauman, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DISTRICT OF OREGON, Portland, OR, R. Joseph Sher, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Alexandria, VA, Attorneys for Defendants.


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Stewart filed a minute order (# 309) on January 25, 2006, denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion to compel plaintiffs' response to interrogatories (# 272). The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter, the district court determines whether the Magistrate Judge's order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2002).

Defendants have timely filed objections (# 322). I have considered the objections and find no error. Accordingly, I AFFIRM Magistrate Judge Stewart's order (# 309), filed on January 25, 2006, in its entirety.


Summaries of

Wong v. Beebe

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 24, 2006
Civil No. 01-718-ST (D. Or. Mar. 24, 2006)
Case details for

Wong v. Beebe

Case Details

Full title:KWAI FUN WONG and WU WEI TIEN TAO ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID V…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Mar 24, 2006

Citations

Civil No. 01-718-ST (D. Or. Mar. 24, 2006)