ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Plaintiff Lula Taylor initiated this action pro se to assert a claim for negligence arising from an incident where she slipped and fell from a liquid substance on the floor of an aisle at Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation's premises. (ECF No. 1 at 8-9.) Before the Court are Plaintiff's objections ("Objections") (ECF No. 76) to United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin Carry's ruling (ECF No. 74) lifting the discovery stay and requiring Plaintiff to comply with the Court's order (ECF No. 36) to supplement her discovery responses. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court overrules Plaintiff's Objections.

Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court review under a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (a "district judge . . . must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law"); see also LR IB 3-1(a) ("A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case under LB IB 1-3, when it has been shown the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law."). A magistrate judge's order is "clearly erroneous" if the court has a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). "An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure." Jadwin v. County of Kern, 767 F.Supp.2d 1069, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F.Supp.2d 159, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). When reviewing the order, however, the magistrate judge "is afforded broad discretion, which will be overruled only if abused." Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 446 (C.D. Cal. 2007). The district judge "may not simply substitute its judgment" for that of the magistrate judge. Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Plaintiff's Objections repeat allegations that Judge Carry has acted contrary to judicial canons—allegations that the Court found baseless in a prior order. (See ECF No. 76 at 4-6; ECF No. 63 at 3-4.) Plaintiff again has failed to demonstrate that Judge Carry's rulings are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court will overrule Plaintiff's Objections.

Plaintiff also seems to seek reconsideration of certain rulings and recusal of Judge Carry (see ECF No. 76 at 2, 5), but Plaintiff has not complied with LR IC 2-2(b), which requires separate filings for each type of relief requested. But even if the Court considers the substance of Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff has failed to offer a valid reason for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff's additional requests in the Objections are denied.

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 76) are overruled.