United States District Court, D. Oregon
MALBCO HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,
BHUPENDRA PATEL and NILA PATEL; HEETAN PATEL and HEETAL PATEL-MANANI; and MUKESH PATEL, Defendants.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
On January 13, 2015, Magistrate Judge Papak issued an Order (#41) in which he granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses. On January 27, 2015, Bhupendra Patel, Nila Patel, Heetan Patel, and Heetal Patel-Manani filed objections to the Order. The matter is now before me pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
In accordance with Rule 72(a), "[w]hen a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The standard of review for an order with objections is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (applying the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review for nondispositive motions). If a ruling on a motion is not determinative of "a party's claim or defense, " it is not dispositive and, therefore, is not subject to de novo review as are proposed findings and recommendations for dispositive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
I have carefully considered Defendants' objections and conclude they do not provide a basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Order.
The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge ...