OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. #56) filed on December 12, 2017. Plaintiff seeks to strike the Magistrate Judge's November 27, 2017 Order (Doc. #54) because he argues that he did not consent to the Magistrate Judge's authority in the case. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied.

The Court will treat the motion as an appeal from the Magistrate Judge's November 27, 2017, Order (Doc. #54). In that Order, the Magistrate Judge granted defendants' request for a stay of discovery, stayed discovery pending resolution of the pending dispositive motions, and denied plaintiff's request for limited jurisdictional discovery. This is a pretrial matter that is not dispositive to the case.

A magistrate judge's powers and jurisdiction are provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Court may designate a Magistrate Judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter, and thereafter reconsider or review the pretrial matter if "shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (providing that a party may file objections to the order within 14 days of its service). "A magistrate judge may be assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).

The Court finds that the magistrate judge had the authority to issue the Order to stay discovery, and further that it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law to do so.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. #56) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.