Hussein v. ERSEK et al
Filing
204
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that P's 98 objection to the Magistrate Judge's order is DENIED. FURTH ORD that the Magistrate Judge's 96 order addressing various discovery disputes is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/23/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Before the court is plaintiff Hussein S. Hussein's ("Hussein") objection to the magistrate 15 judge's September 15, 2009 order (Doc. #961) granting defendants's motion for a protective order 16 (Doc. #88). Doc. #98. 17 Local Rule IB 3-1 authorizes a district judge to reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a 18 magistrate judge pursuant to LR IB 1-3 where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is 19 clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Here, Hussein objects to the magistrate's order (Doc. #96) 20 arguing that the magistrate failed to consider his points and authorities filed in support of his 21 opposition to defendants' motion for a protective order (Doc. #88). Specifically, Hussein contends 22 that had the magistrate judge read and thoroughly evaluated his briefs, then defendants' motion 23 would not have been granted. See Doc. #98. 24 The court finds that Hussein's argument is without merit. If simply alleging that had the 25 26
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
HUSSEIN S. HUSSEIN, Plaintiffs, v. ADEL ERSEK; et al., Defendants.
3:07-cv-0056-LRH-VPC ORDER
Refers to the court's docket entry number.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
judge taken the party's arguments into account then the party's motion would not have been denied was sufficient to satisfy the clearly erroneous standard, then every litigant dissatisfied with a ruling could meet its burden on the simple fact that a motion was denied. There is no legal or logical support for such a position. Additionally, the court finds that the magistrate took Hussein's points and authorities into account before making a decision on the motion. The magistrate held a hearing on the pending motion in order to address all the parties' concerns and to fully evaluate the parties' arguments and factual support. Further, as evidenced by the papers and pleadings on filed in this matter, the magistrate was very familiar with both parties' filings and addressed them appropriately. Accordingly, the court shall affirm the magistrate judge's order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's objection to the magistrate judge's order (Doc. #98) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge's order addressing various discovery disputes (Doc. #96) is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 23rd day of April, 2010.
__________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
