Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Strohmeyer v. Belanger

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 7, 2020

JEREMY JOSEPH STROHMEYER, Plaintiff,
v.
KELLY BELANGER, et al. Defendants.

          ORDER

          ROBERT C. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         A court 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); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).

         ANALYSIS

         1. Objection/Appeal of Magistrate Order 150

         Plaintiff 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.)

         Plaintiff 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.

         The hearing at issue was held on August 27, 2019. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections are moot, and the objection/appeal is denied.

         2. Objection/Appeal of Magistrate Order 153

         Following 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.

         3. Objection/Appeal of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.