Siemers v. BNSF Railway Company, 8:17-CV-360. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20190508e19
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 07, 2019
Latest Update: May 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's objection (filing 160) to the Magistrate Judge's order (filing 155) compelling the plaintiff to produce to BNSF all records received in response to the plaintiff's subpoena to his cellular telephone carrier. A district court may reconsider a magistrate judge's ruling on nondispositive pretrial matters only where it has been shown that the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 2
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's objection (filing 160) to the Magistrate Judge's order (filing 155) compelling the plaintiff to produce to BNSF all records received in response to the plaintiff's subpoena to his cellular telephone carrier. A district court may reconsider a magistrate judge's ruling on nondispositive pretrial matters only where it has been shown that the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28..
More
ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's objection (filing 160) to the Magistrate Judge's order (filing 155) compelling the plaintiff to produce to BNSF all records received in response to the plaintiff's subpoena to his cellular telephone carrier.
A district court may reconsider a magistrate judge's ruling on nondispositive pretrial matters only where it has been shown that the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Ferguson v. United States, 484 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 2007). Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. In fact, the Court concurs in the Magistrate Judge's factual findings, analysis, and conclusions of law in all respects.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The plaintiff's objection (filing 160) is overruled.
2. The Magistrate Judge's stay of her order (filing 162) is lifted.
Source: Leagle
