United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Strohmeyer files these objections to various orders issued by
the Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 150, 153, 208, and 209.) For
the following reasons, Plaintiff's appeals are denied.
is an inmate currently in the custody of the Nevada
Department of Corrections (NDOC) proceeding pro se with this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Complaint which this Court screened pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Following attempted mediation,
Plaintiff requested leave to file a Third Amended Complaint,
which this Court granted.
reviews orders by magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Under the statute, non-dispositive orders are
overturned only if they are “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);
Objection/Appeal of Magistrate Order 150
filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Defendant
Olivas. ECF No. 147. Defendant Olivas then filed a Motion for
Discovery Hearing (ECF No. 148) and a Motion to Stay the
Deadline to Respond to ECF No. 147 (ECF No. 149). The
Magistrate Judge granted both of Defendant's motions and
ordered a discovery hearing to be scheduled. (ECF No. 150.)
objects to the Magistrate's Order, arguing that the
Magistrate Judge improperly issued the order prior to
receiving Plaintiff's response, that Defendant's
motions were filed without basis in law or fact and for the
improper purpose of delay. Plaintiff further objects to
holding the hearing prior to the relevant discovery issues
being fully briefed.
hearing at issue was held on August 27, 2019. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's objections are moot, and the objection/appeal
Objection/Appeal of Magistrate Order 153
the filing of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, the
Magistrate Judge issued a screening order determining which
of Plaintiff's claims were allowed to proceed. Plaintiff
files this Objection/Appeal for the purpose of preserving the
right to appeal the claims dismissed by the screening order.
Dismissal of a claim via screening order is considered a
dispositive ruling by the Court. Each of the claims listed in
the Magistrate Order as claims which would not proceed had
previously been dismissed with prejudice by the Court in
prior screening orders. Therefore, an objection is not
required as the claims are already preserved for appeal by
the prior dispositive orders. Accordingly, the
objection/appeal is denied as moot.
Objection/Appeal of ...