Filed: May 06, 2014
Latest Update: May 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Kevin Fernandez's ("Fernandez") Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. #221 1 ) pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-1. Doc. #228. A magistrate judge's orders operate as final determinations of pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule IB 1-3. Accordingly, a district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge's order only if it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ.
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Kevin Fernandez's ("Fernandez") Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. #221 1 ) pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-1. Doc. #228. A magistrate judge's orders operate as final determinations of pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule IB 1-3. Accordingly, a district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge's order only if it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P..
More
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Kevin Fernandez's ("Fernandez") Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. #2211) pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-1. Doc. #228. A magistrate judge's orders operate as final determinations of pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule IB 1-3. Accordingly, a district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge's order only if it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a).
First, Fernandez objects to the Magistrate Judge's failure to address two of the bases on which he moved for sanctions for spoilation of evidence. See Doc. #228, pp. 2-3. Specifically, Fernandez asserts that he sought sanctions for Defendants' spoilation of video recordings and digital photos, as well as polygraph evidence. See id. Indeed the Magistrate Judge did not address these issues.2 Accordingly, the Court remands for further consideration.
Second, Fernandez objects to the Magistrate Judge's denial of his Motion as it relates to the biological evidence he preserved for testing. See Doc. #228. In denying his Motion, the Magistrate Judge determined that the issue was moot because the cause of action to which the biological evidence pertained was not allowed to proceed, and thus the "spoilation" evidence pertaining thereto could not be considered relevant. See Doc. #221, p. 4. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's ruling in this regard was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Nevertheless, Fernandez's Motion for Sanctions argued that the biological evidence was relevant to whether Defendants were justified in their admission of him into the Mental Health Unit ("MHU"), their labeling him mentally ill, and their subsequent treatment of him. See Doc. #151, p. 6. Specifically, Fernandez alleges that he was labeled mentally ill, in part, because he claimed that Defendants put laxatives in his food. See id. Because the Magistrate Judge did not address the relevancy of the biological evidence as it relates to his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, the Court remands for further consideration.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Fernandez's Objection (Doc. #228) is SUSTAINED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
