Critical Nurse Staffing v. Four Corners Health Care, No. 2:2013cv00646 - Document 149 (D. Utah 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER overruling Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision re 124 Memorandum Decision/Order on 105 , 109 Motions to Compel. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 6/13/16 (alt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Critical Nurse Staffing v. Four Corners Health Care Doc. 149 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CRITICAL NURSE STAFFING, INC., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION Plaintiff, v. FOUR CORNERS HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, a Utah Corporation, FOUR CORNERS HEALTH CARE - NM, LLC, a New Mexico Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:13-CV-646 TS District Judge Ted Stewart Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Objection of Magistrate Judge Decision. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will overrule the objection. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court reviews a Magistrate Judge’s orders on nondispositive matters under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. 1 “The clearly erroneous standard . . . requires that the reviewing court affirm unless it ‘on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” 2 The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Order, Defendants’ objection thereto, the underlying briefing, and the relevant case law. Having done so, the Court cannot conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Further, 1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 2 Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). 1 Dockets.Justia.com many of the specific arguments raised in Defendants’ objection were not presented to the Magistrate Judge and were raised for the first time in the objection. These arguments are deemed waived. 3 It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ objection (Docket No. 132) is OVERRULED. Defendants are directed to respond to Plaintiff’s Production Request No. 14, as amended by the Magistrate Judge, within ten (10) days of this Order. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs in having to file its response to Defendants’ objection is DENIED. DATED this 13th day of June, 2016. BY THE COURT: ____________________________________ Ted Stewart United States District Judge 3 Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996). 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
