Truesdell
v.
Donat

United States District Court, D. NevadaNov 5, 2010
3:10-CV-00453-LRH-VPC. (D. Nev. Nov. 5, 2010)

3:10-CV-00453-LRH-VPC.

November 5, 2010


ORDER


Before the court is Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to Grant Motion to Disqualify (#22), and Defendants' response (#23). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge's Order (#20) granting defendant Adam Watson's motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A. Dickerson, based on Mr. Dickerson's prior representation of Watson.

Contrary to Plaintiffs' mislabeling of the magistrate judge's order as a "recommendation," it is a final determination of a pretrial matter pursuant to the magistrate judge's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule IB 1-3. Accordingly, a district judge may reconsider the magistrate judge's order only if it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a).

Having considered the parties' briefing, the court finds that the magistrate judge's determinations are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Indeed, even if a de novo standard of review applied, the court would adopt the magistrate judge's factual findings and legal conclusions as its own.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to Grant Motion to Disqualify (#22) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 5th day of November, 2010.