ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.

The matter before me is the objection contained in the Motion To Vacate and Objection To Order [#110] Re Motion for Restricted Access [#91] [#113]1 filed February 20, 2015. I overrule the objection.

The objection pertains to non-dispositive matters that were referred to the magistrate judge for resolution. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), I may modify or set aside any portion of an order of a magistrate judge which I find to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Having reviewed the apposite motion, responses, and reply, the order of the magistrate judge, and the plaintiff's objection, I conclude that the order of the magistrate judge is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, I overrule the objection [#113].

The underlying motion [#91] is a motion for restricted access to a certain document filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought a Level 2 restriction. In her order [#110], the magistrate judge cited valid reasons to grant the motion, but determined that a Level 1 restriction, rather than a Level 2 restriction, was proper.

One novel contention raised in the objection is that the magistrate judge exceeded her authority in issuing her order because the order makes a dispositive ruling on the question of the level of restricted access to be applied to a filing in this case. Citing the order of reference [#7] to the magistrate judge, the plaintiffs note that the order authorizes the magistrate judge to hear and make recommendations on dispositive matters that have been referred as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The dispositive matters defined in § 636(b)(1)(A) are, in essence, motions that dispositive of a claim in a civil or criminal case, motions to suppress evidence in a criminal case, motions for injunctive relief, and motions for class certification. The motion in question here does not fall within the dispositive matters defined in § 636(b)(1)(A). Rather, the magistrate judge had full authority to address and resolve the motion for restricted access [#91].

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the objection stated in the Motion To Vacate and Objection To Order [#110] Re Motion for Restricted Access [#91] [#113] filed February 20, 2015, is overruled; and

2. That to the extent the Motion To Vacate and Objection To Order [#110] Re Motion for Restricted Access [#91] [#113] filed February 20, 2015, can be read as a motion rather than an objection, the motion is denied.