Taylor v. El Centro College et al, No. 3:2021cv00999 - Document 62 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 59 MOTION for Leave & Excusable Negligence to File Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order filed by Reginald Darrel Taylor re: 56 Memorandum Opinion and Order; affirming Magistrate Judge's 56 Memorandum Opinion and Order re: 54 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Alternative/Substitute Service of Summons. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/21/2022) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taylor v. El Centro College et al Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION REGINALD DARRELL TAYLOR, Plaintiff, VS. EL CENTRO COLLEGE, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-0999-D MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff’s March 10, 2022 motion for leave & excusable negligence to file objections to magistrate judge’s order on alternative service of summons is denied, and the magistrate judge’s February 25, 2022 memorandum opinion and order is affirmed. Because the magistrate judge’s memorandum opinion and order involves a nondispositive matter, plaintiff’s objections are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he district judge . . . must . . . modify or set aside any part of the [magistrate judge’s] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Rule 72(a). “When a party appeals a magistrate judge’s order, he must demonstrate how the order is reversible under the applicable standard of review—de novo for error of law, clear error for fact findings, or abuse of discretion for discretionary matters.” Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Bellows, 2003 WL 21501904, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 24, 2003) (Fitzwater, J.). “The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to the factual components of the magistrate judge’s decision.” Lahr v. Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., 164 F.R.D. 204, 208 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (Fitzwater, J.) (quoting Smith v. Smith, 154 F.R.D. 661, 665 (N.D. Tex. 1994) (Fitzwater, J.)). “The district court may not disturb a factual finding of the magistrate judge unless, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm Dockets.Justia.com conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quoting Smith, 154 F.R.D. at 665) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “If a magistrate judge’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, a district judge may not reverse it.” Id. (quoting Smith, 154 F.R.D. at 665) (internal quotation marks omitted). The legal conclusions of the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo, and the district judge “reverses if the magistrate judge erred in some respect in her legal conclusions.” Id. (citing Smith, 154 F.R.D. at 665). “[T]he abuse of discretion standard governs review of that vast area of . . . choice that remains to the [magistrate judge] who has properly applied the law to fact findings that are not clearly erroneous.” Id. (quoting Smith, 154 F.R.D. at 665) (alteration and ellipsis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief and that the magistrate judge’s February 25, 2022 memorandum opinion and order should be reversed under the applicable standard of review. Accordingly, the memorandum opinion and order is AFFIRMED. March 21, 2022. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER SENIOR JUDGE -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.
