Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enterprises

January 8, 2007

TERESEA O'BRIEN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ED DONNELLY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge George C. Smith

Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's September 5, 2006 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Plaintiffs' Objection to the September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order"), Doc. No. 123.*fn1 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Objection to the September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order is DENIED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions, alleging that defendants intentionally lost or destroyed certain documents that should have been available for production in this action. Doc. No. 108. On February 27, 2006, defendants filed Defendants' Memorandum Contra, Doc. No., 114, and on March 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Doc. No. 166.

On September 5, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge King issued an Opinion and Order ("September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order") in which she denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. Doc. No. 119.

On September 15, 2006, plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Objection to the September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 123, and on September 25, 2006, defendants filed their memorandum contra Plaintiffs' Objection to the September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 122. On October 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their objection, Doc. No. 124.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Plaintiffs object to the September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order, wherein United States Magistrate Judge King denied plaintiffs' nondispositive motion for sanctions against defendants for their alleged discovery misconduct. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), requires this Court to apply a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review for decisions of magistrate judges on nondispositive motions. See also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001).

III. ANALYSIS

Nowhere in the twenty-seven pages of Plaintiffs' Objection to the September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order do plaintiffs present legal analysis in support of their contention that the September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Indeed, plaintiffs literally cut and paste the majority of their arguments directly from Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. After review of Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and the September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order, this Court concludes that Magistrate Judge King correctly analyzed and properly denied plaintiffs' motion. The Magistrate Judge's decision is amply supported by the evidence and her decision is based on the proper application of the relevant law. Because the September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), plaintiffs' objections to it are without merit.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Objection to the September 5, 2006, Opinion and Order, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.