Ross v. Blewett et al, No. 2:2020cv01338 - Document 98 (D. Or. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court has reviewed Judge Beckerman's orders, ECF Nos. 61 and 74, and concludes that Judge Beckerman's decision is not contrary to law nor is it clearly erroneous. Further, the objections raised by Plaintif f, ECF No. 76 , do not provide a basis to modify Judge Beckerman's order denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Signed on 1/18/2023 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL** (James Ross, Prisoner ID: 12599830) (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ross v. Blewett et al Doc. 98 Case 2:20-cv-01338-SB Document 98 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PENDLETON DIVISION JAMES ARTHUR ROSS, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 2:20-cv-01338-SB OPINION & ORDER v. TYLER BLEWETT, et al, Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to a non-dispositive order issued by Judge Beckerman November 16, 2022, incorporating an earlier order issued June 7, 2022, denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF Nos. 61, 72, 74, 76. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 judgment must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The standard for review for a nondispositive order with objections is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Id.; 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). Page 1 –OPINION & ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-01338-SB Document 98 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 2 The Court has reviewed Judge Beckerman’s orders, ECF Nos. 61 and 74, and concludes that Judge Beckerman’s decision is not contrary to law nor is it clearly erroneous. Further, the objections raised by Plaintiff, ECF No. 76, do not provide a basis to modify Judge Beckerman’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. It is so ORDERED and DATED this 18th day of January, 2023. /s/Ann Aiken Ann Aiken U.S. District Judge Page 2 –OPINION & ORDER
]]>
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.
