Opinion
Civil Action 22-4007
04-25-2024
PRESTON LEWIS v. JONATHAN FRIEDMAN, ET AL
SECTION: “P” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
DARREL JAMES PAPILLION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On August 23, 2023, the undersigned District Judge referred nine non-dispositive motions to the Magistrate Judge for hearing and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Magistrate Judge issued its Order and Reasons on all nine motions on September 7, 2023. Pro se Plaintiff, Preston Lewis, timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons on September 20, 2023. These objections (R. Doc. 120) are presently before the Court for consideration. The Court construes these objections as a motion to review a magistrate judge's order.
R. Doc. 102.
R. Doc. 110.
R. Doc. 120.
See Local Rule 72.2.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the District Judge must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the Magistrate Judge's order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff makes seven objections to the Magistrate Judge's order. Upon review of the Magistrate Judge's order and Plaintiff's objections thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. For the reasons stated in his Order and Reasons, the Magistrate Judge properly denied Plaintiff's Motion to Modify and to Strike (R. Doc. 73); Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to File Supplemental Pleading (R. Doc. 76); Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Attorney and All Pleadings on File from Attorneys of Defendant Jonathan Friedman (R. Doc. 81); Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (R. Doc. 84); Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant Jonathan Friedman's Attorney from the Case (R. Doc. 92); and Plaintiff's Motion to See Jonathan Friedman's Defense Attorney's Foreign Registration Statement and Anti Bribery Statement (R. Doc. 101); and the Magistrate Judge properly dismissed as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants Troy Pichon, Steve Lynn, and Trent Cuccia's Attorney from Record (R. Doc. 91).
R. Doc. 120.
To the extent Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Summons and Complaint (R. Doc. 83) was not moot at the time the Magistrate Judge dismissed it as such, Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate Judge's ruling is nevertheless moot now because Plaintiff has since filed a Second Amended Complaint, thus negating any need for an extension of time to serve summons and his first amended complaint.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons are OVERRULED, and the motion for review of the magistrate judge's order (R. Doc. 120) is DENIED.