United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
CHRISTOPHER L. AMERSON, Plaintiff,
GREGORY DOZIER, et al., Defendants.
E. SELF, III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), pro se
Plaintiff Christopher L. Amerson seeks reconsideration of
three nondispositive orders, [Docs. 60, 71, 90], previously
entered by the United States Magistrate Judge. This rule
permits “[t]he district judge . . . [to] consider
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of [a
magistrate judge's] order that is clearly erroneous or is
contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
preliminary matter, however, the Court addresses
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. 80]. In
that Motion, he requests that the Court consider his second
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 78], infra, despite
its untimely filing due to purported delays in the prison
mail system. Compare [Doc. 71] with [Doc.
78]; see also [Doc. 80 at p. 1]. Normally, these
types of motions must be filed within 14 days after service
of the order for which review by the district judge is
sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Nevertheless, after consideration
of Plaintiff's “request that his attached
objections [and] motions be accepted, ” the Court
GRANTS his Motion for Extension of Time
[Doc. 78]. [Doc. 78 at p. 1]. Accordingly, the Court
considers all three of Plaintiff's pending Motions
seeking review of orders, [Docs. 60, 71, 90], previously
entered by the magistrate judge.
the magistrate judge's orders do not dispose of a claim
or defense of any party, it is a nondispositive order.
See Smith v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cty., 487 F.3d 1361,
1365 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). As such, to prevail on
his Motions, Plaintiff must establish that any conclusion to
which he objects or seeks reconsideration from the magistrate
judge's orders is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 72(a); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); see also Merritt v. Int'l Bhd. of
Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1016-17 (5th Cir. June
1981); Williams v. Wright, No. CV
309-055, 2009 WL 4891825, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2009)
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a)) (“A district court
reviewing a magistrate judge's decision on a
nondispositive issue ‘must consider . . . objections
and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.'”)
error is a highly deferential standard of review.”
Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d
1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “[A]
finding is ‘clearly erroneous' when although there
is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” Id. (citations
omitted); see also Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus.
Co., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The clear
error standard [under Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A)] means that the district court can overturn the
magistrate judge's ruling only if the district court is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been made.”). “A magistrate judge's order is
contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant
statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Ellis
v. United States, No. 3:15-cv-1078-J-34JBT, 2016 WL
1658706, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2016) (quoting Botta
v. Barnhart, 475 F.Supp.2d 174, 185 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)).
Plaintiff's Motions, his first Motion for Reconsideration
[Doc. 65] asks the Court to reconsider the magistrate
judge's futility-based denial of leave to amend his
complaint. [Doc. 60]. His second Motion for Reconsideration
[Doc. 78] seeks review of the magistrate judge's denial
of a variety of motions, three of which, [Docs. 62, 64, 67],
also sought leave to amend his complaint, while the other was
a Motion for Discovery [Doc. 66]. See [Doc. 71].
Finally, in his third motion, a Motion to Alter Judgment
[Doc. 96], Plaintiff requests the reconsideration the
magistrate judge's extension of this case's discovery
period. See [Doc. 90 at pp. 1-2].
careful consideration of Plaintiff's Motions, the Court
finds that the magistrate judge's previous,
nondispositive orders were neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law. See, e.g., [Doc. 60 at pp. 1-2];
[Doc. 71 at p. 4]; [Doc. 90 at pp. 1-2]. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for
Reconsideration [Docs. 65, 78, 96] and the United States
Magistrate Judge's previous rulings shall stand as
 In Bonner v. City of
Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc)
the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all the
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to