Maxwell/G-Doffee v. Simmons

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

DON THOMAS MERCELEANY PLAINTIFF MAXWELL/G-DOFFEE ADC #108778

V. NO. 4:22-cv-00482-JM-ERE

ALICIA SIMMONS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Pending is Plaintiff’s appeal of two orders entered by United States Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin (Doc. No. 59, appealing Doc. Nos. 52 and 57). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) allows a party to appeal a non-dispositive order of a magistrate judge to the district court. When timely objections are made to a magistrate judge's written order concerning a non- dispositive pretrial motion, the district judge must consider those objections and must affirm the order unless it is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive issue is extremely deferential.” Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1007 (D.Minn.1999). On September 12, 2022, Judge Ervin entered an order denying Mr. Doffee’s motion to compel. On September 15, 2022, Judge Ervin denied Mr. G. Doffee’s request for a physical examination as premature. The Court has reviewed the motions and the orders and agrees with the opinions of Judge Ervin. Finding that her decisions are neither erroneous nor contrary to the law, the orders of September 12, 2022 and September 15, 2022 (Doc. Nos. 52 and 57) are affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of October, 2022.

vant M. mn , + UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE