Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff's objection to a Magistrate Judge's order denying a motion for sanctions. The court overruled the objection because it was filed after the deadline set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and alternatively because the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge made a legal or factual error.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate Judge's order denying sanctions is overruled.“For the reasons stated above, the Court OVERRULES the objection.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the procedural rule that objections to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive order must be filed within 14 days to preserve the right to review. The order notes the objection was filed on June 7, 2021, against an order issued May 18, 2021, which is outside the 14-day window (deadline would have been June 1, 2021). Additionally, the court correctly noted that even if timely, the plaintiff failed to meet the 'clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard for review of non-dispositive orders by failing to show legal or factual error. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the deadline issue under Rule 72 and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Simpson) regarding the consequences of missing that deadline. It also provides an alternative substantive basis for the decision, noting the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate error in the magistrate's ruling. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural dismissal of an objection.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE ORDER [ECF 135] 14 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 Pending before the Court in this civil rights action is Plaintiff’s objection to 17 Magistrate Judge Butcher’s order that denied Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Defendants 18 opposed. The Court decides the matter without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1. 19 Magistrate Judge Butcher issued the order on May 18, 2021. (ECF 130). Plaintiff 20 filed his objection on June 7, 2021, after the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 72. (See ECF 135). The Court therefore overrules the objection. See Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 72(a); see, e.g., Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 23 1996) (“a party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive 24 order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its right to appellate 25 review of that order.”) 26 Even so, Plaintiff failed to show Judge Butcher made a legal or factual error. The 27 matter at issue is Plaintiff’s (continued) assertion that Defendants altered video evidence. 28 1 ||(ECF 130).! It is serious. Yet there is no evidence to support it — as Judge Butcher 2 || determined after a thorough and careful review. For the reasons stated above, the Court 3 || OVERRULES the objection. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: September 16, 2021 pee ep? 7 H . James Lorenz, 3 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || 27 ||! The motion for sanctions also involved allegations that Defendants failed to timely produce video 3g || evidence and their expert witness disclosure was improper. (ECF 130). But Plaintiff did not raise those issues here. (ECF 135).