DAVIDSON v. AKUNWANNE

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

GERALD A. DAVIDSON, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-241 (MTT) ) DR. AKUNWANNE, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Hyles recommends denying Plaintiff Gerald Davidson’s motion to remand. Doc. 31. Davidson has not objected, so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Recommendation for clear error. After review, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation (Doc. 31) is ADOPTED and made the order of the Court. Accordingly, Davidson’s motion to remand (Doc. 7) is DENIED. Davidson did, however, object to the Magistrate Judge’s order staying discovery (Doc. 24) pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 10). Doc. 30. The Defendants responded in opposition. Doc. 32. “A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Brown v. United States, 748 F.3d 1045, 1055 (11th Cir. 2014); Muhammad v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 399 F. App’x 460, 462 (11th Cir. 2010). Here, the Court construes Davidson’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a pretrial matter as a motion for reconsideration. Because Davidson has not shown the Magistrate Judge’s order staying discovery was clearly erroneous or contrary to law, Davidson’s motion (Doc. 30) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 15th day of February, 2022.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT