Ford v. H Unit Five et al, No. 2:2016cv00780 - Document 38 (D. Utah 2017)
Court Description: CORRECTED ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 29 Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court re 28 Order on Motion to Compel (corrects 34 Order). Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 5/30/17 (alt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION CAROLYN FORD, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. H UNIT FIVE, INC, Utah Corporation d/b/a GOOD EARTH NATURAL FOODS; T. HUMPHREY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Utah limited partnership, and John Does IX, XYZ corporations and/or limited liability companies I-X. CORRECTED ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING OBJECTION Case No. 2:16-cv-780 Judge Tena Campbell Defendants. On March 29, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Warner denied Plaintiff Carolyn Ford’s motion to compel an inspection of Defendants’ property. 1 Ms. Ford objected to Judge Warner’s order. 1 This is a corrected version of the order entered on May 18, 2017. That order referred to Judge Warner’s order by the wrong date. This corrected version resolves that inaccuracy. Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a district court to “modify or set aside” a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order “that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Under this standard, the court must affirm the magistrate judge’s order unless the court “‘is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indust., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). The court has reviewed the March 29, 2017, order, the briefing on Ms. Ford’s objection, and the relevant caselaw. The court does not find the order to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As a result, the court DENIES Ms. Ford’s objection (ECF No. 29). DATED this 30th day of May, 2017. BY THE COURT: TENA CAMPBELL U.S. District Court Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
