U.S. v. LUNDSTROM, 4:14-CR-3136. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20151008b49
Visitors: 24
Filed: Oct. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the defendant Gilbert G. Lundstrom's objection (filing 91) to the Magistrate Judge's order (filing 78) denying his motion (filing 68) for a bill of particulars. The objection will be overruled. 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
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the defendant Gilbert G. Lundstrom's objection (filing 91) to the Magistrate Judge's order (filing 78) denying his motion (filing 68) for a bill of particulars. The objection will be overruled. 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..
More
ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the defendant Gilbert G. Lundstrom's objection (filing 91) to the Magistrate Judge's order (filing 78) denying his motion (filing 68) for a bill of particulars. The objection will be overruled.
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 (8th Cir. 2007). The Court has carefully reviewed the defendant's objection and the government's response, the underlying motion and briefs, and the evidence adduced before the Magistrate Judge. The Court has also reviewed the Magistrate Judge's memorandum and order denying the defendant's motion for bill of particulars with respect to the original indictment, and upon which she relied in ruling on the instant motion.
Being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and overrules the defendant's objection for the reasons explained by the Magistrate Judge in her memorandum and order (filing 78).
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's objection (filing 91) is overruled.
Source: Leagle
