MAURICE HICKS JR., District Judge
Before the Court is a Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 46) filed by pro se petitioner Harold Joe Black ("Petitioner"). Petitioner appeals Magistrate Judge Hornsby's Memorandum Order of June 9, 2011 (Record Document 40), which denied Petitioner's "Motion for Request Order, Upon Either Parties."
The aforementioned decision by Magistrate Judge Hornsby related to a non-dispositive matter. This action is not listed in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as one of the dispositive motions (often referred to as the "excepted motions") that a magistrate judge may not conclusively decide. Magistrate Judge Hornsby's Memorandum Order is not a recommendation to the district court; rather, it is an order from the magistrate judge on a non-dispositive matter that requires the district court to uphold the ruling unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995); Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 1066, 1070 (5th Cir. 1992). This Court will review the Magistrate Judge's legal conclusions de novo, and will review his factual findings for clear error. See Choate v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 03-CV-2111, 2005 WL 1109432, *1 (N.D.Tex. May 5, 2005).
Petitioner argues, with nothing more, that his "Motion for Request Order, Upon Either Parties" should have been "granted for the sake of justice." Record Document 46. Yet, this Court's review reveals no error by the Magistrate Judge. In his motion, Petitioner requested cassette recordings, transcripts, and other exhibits. Yet, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, this case is still under initial review. Petitioner has simply not demonstrated, at this stage, a particular and/or compelling need for these items. The record easily establishes that Magistrate Judge Hornsby's Memorandum Order denying Petitioner's request was proper and, more specifically, was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 46) be and is hereby DENIED.
Comments