Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE ORDER [ECF 135] 14 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 Pending before the Court in this civil rights action is Plaintiff’s objection to 17 Magistrate Judge Butcher’s order that denied Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Defendants 18 opposed. The Court decides the matter without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1. 19 Magistrate Judge Butcher issued the order on May 18, 2021. (ECF 130). Plaintiff 20 filed his objection on June 7, 2021, after the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 72. (See ECF 135). The Court therefore overrules the objection. See Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 72(a); see, e.g., Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 23 1996) (“a party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive 24 order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its right to appellate 25 review of that order.”) 26 Even so, Plaintiff failed to show Judge Butcher made a legal or factual error. The 27 matter at issue is Plaintiff’s (continued) assertion that Defendants altered video evidence. 28 1 ||(ECF 130).! It is serious. Yet there is no evidence to support it — as Judge Butcher 2 || determined after a thorough and careful review. For the reasons stated above, the Court 3 || OVERRULES the objection. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: September 16, 2021 pee ep? 7 H . James Lorenz, 3 United States District Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || 27 ||! The motion for sanctions also involved allegations that Defendants failed to timely produce video 3g || evidence and their expert witness disclosure was improper. (ECF 130). But Plaintiff did not raise those issues here. (ECF 135).