MANN v. SCOTT, 0:14-3474. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20150506b05
Visitors: 25
Filed: May 04, 2015
Latest Update: May 04, 2015
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on an appeal from an order of the Magistrate Judge on a on a discovery related matter in a case referred to the Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. (Dkt. No. 49). The appeal concerns the denial of two motions to compel filed by the Plaintiff regarding the refusal of Defendants to respond to discovery requests which were untimely under the Court's Scheduling Order. (Dkt. Nos. 21, 33, 35, 40). It is well set
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on an appeal from an order of the Magistrate Judge on a on a discovery related matter in a case referred to the Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. (Dkt. No. 49). The appeal concerns the denial of two motions to compel filed by the Plaintiff regarding the refusal of Defendants to respond to discovery requests which were untimely under the Court's Scheduling Order. (Dkt. Nos. 21, 33, 35, 40). It is well sett..
More
ORDER
RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on an appeal from an order of the Magistrate Judge on a on a discovery related matter in a case referred to the Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. (Dkt. No. 49). The appeal concerns the denial of two motions to compel filed by the Plaintiff regarding the refusal of Defendants to respond to discovery requests which were untimely under the Court's Scheduling Order. (Dkt. Nos. 21, 33, 35, 40).
It is well settled that the District Court will not reverse orders of Magistrate Judges on non-dispositive matters unless it can be shown that the rulings are "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court has reviewed the motions to compel of Plaintiff and the Plaintiffs Appeal (Dkt. Nos. 21, 33, 49), as well as Defendant's response in opposition to the Appeal (Dkt. No. 53), and has concluded that the Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the Magistrate Judge's order (Dkt. No. 40) is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, the order of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 40) is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
