Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ASHCRAFT v. WHITE PINE COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, 3:11-CV-00383-LRH-WGC. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20120522a48 Visitors: 3
Filed: May 21, 2012
Latest Update: May 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the court is Plaintiff Michelle Ann Ashcraft's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (#28 1 ). Defendant White Pine County Hospital District, dba William Bee Ririe Hospital, filed an opposition (#29). No reply was filed. Plaintiff objects the Magistrate Judge's Order (#27) of March 21, 2012, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Amend Complaint (#23), and denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (#19) as futi
More

ORDER

LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.

Before the court is Plaintiff Michelle Ann Ashcraft's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (#281). Defendant White Pine County Hospital District, dba William Bee Ririe Hospital, filed an opposition (#29). No reply was filed.

Plaintiff objects the Magistrate Judge's Order (#27) of March 21, 2012, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Amend Complaint (#23), and denying Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (#19) as futile. The substance of the objection is limited, however, to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on the motion to strike. Plaintiff contends the Magistrate Judge erred in rejecting Plaintiff's argument that Defendant's opposition to her motion to amend was actually, and should be construed as, a motion to dismiss brought on behalf of the three individual defendants that Plaintiff sought to add through her amended complaint.

"A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." LR IB 3-1(a). Here, the Magistrate Judge specifically considered and rejected each of Plaintiff's arguments, and Plaintiff's objection merely repeats those arguments while entirely failing to address the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Moreover, having considered the Magistrate Judge's thorough analysis, the court finds nothing that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (#28) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Refers to the court's docket entry number.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer