LEO GLASSER, Senior District Judge
In what was captioned as a "Notice of Appeal," dated April 26, 2011, the plaintiff has filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Orenstein's Orders of March 7, 30 and April 21, 2011, in the course of presiding over pretrial matters in this case which he was designated to hear and determine.
Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., provides in relevant part that:
A party may file and serve objections to the Order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous and contrary to law.
The objections to the March 7th and 30th Orders are not timely and are dismissed. Timeliness aside, having reviewed those Orders de novo, they are neither erroneous nor contrary to law. On April 21, 2011, Magistrate Judge Orenstein issued an order which, in relevant part provides as follows:
(2) The plaintiff has neither appealed nor complied with two orders, one requiring him to reimburse the defendants for certain discovery costs, . . . and the other requiring him to certify on the docket that he has notified the recipients of improperly issued subpoenas that they need not respond. I cautioned the plaintiff personally that continued defiance of court orders will result in a recommendation that the case be
dismissed. Specifically, no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 26, 2011, the plaintiff must reimburse the defendants $3,253.00 in past discovery costs and comply with my order of April 13, 2011.
The plaintiff has not shown any reason to warrant this Court's reconsideration of this Order for it is clearly neither erroneous nor contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P. His objections are dismissed.
SO ORDERED.