ORDER

J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.

Before the Court are Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Orders of August 19, 2015 and October 28, 2015. Docs. 81, 93. After careful consideration, these Objections are OVERRULED, and the Magistrate Judge's Orders remain the Orders of the Court.

On August 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge granted Defendant's request to extend the time to file his Motion for Summary Judgment from August 13, 2015 to September 30, 2015. Doc. 79. Defendant's request was based on a delay in the preparation of the Plaintiffs deposition transcript. Doc. 76. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that Defendant established good cause for the extension of this deadline. Doc. 81.

On October 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order on seventeen pretrial motions filed by Plaintiff. Doc. 92. That Order denied the majority of these Motions but granted Plaintiff additional time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Plaintiffs requests for copies of some pleadings. Id. Though Plaintiff states that he objects to each of these rulings, he provides little in support of his objections. Doc. 93.

A district judge must consider a party's objections to a magistrate judge's order on a pretrial matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). However, the district judge may modify or set aside that order, and reconsider the pretrial matter, only "where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Orders and Plaintiffs Objections, the Court finds nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to law in the Magistrate Judge's rulings. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Objection's are OVERRULED.

SO ORDERED.