Kenneth W. Reed, Plaintiff,
Karen Barcklay, et al., Defendant.
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge and Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Orders of December 27, 2012 and January 25, 2013 (Doc. 213 and 214); (2) Plaintiff's Supplement to his Motion to Recuse and Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order of February 5, 2013 (Doc. 215); and (3) Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order of April 30, 2013 (Doc. 245 and Doc. 246).
On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma in San Luis, Arizona, filed an amended pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 22) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's December 27, 2012, January 25, 2013, and February 5, 2013 Orders. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Recuse the Magistrate Judge. The Court now rules on Plaintiff's objections and the Motion to Recuse.
II. OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDERS
The Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-639, "distinguishes between nondispositive matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and dispositive matters heard pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)." United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 968 (9th Cir. 2001). "Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear any nondispositive pretrial matter pending before the court." Estate of Connors v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis in original).
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file 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 or is contrary to law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court will thus review the Magistrate Judge's decisions of law de novo, and decisions of fact only for clear error. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d at 967.
A. The December 27, 2012 Order (Doc. 191)
On December 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's Modified/Censored Second Motion to Compel Compliance with Plaintiff's Request for Production of Medical Records and Motion for Issuance of Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions should not be Imposed (Doc. 161).
In his Motion, Plaintiff argued that Defendants failed to produce medical records that Defendants obtained from the Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADC") in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Court's June 22, 2012 Order. In his Motion, Plaintiff specifically complained that Defendants did not produce his medical records in an orderly fashion and that certain records were missing. Plaintiff also argued that Defendants failed to produce medical records maintained in the ADC's Adult Information Audit Management System ("AIMS records").
In denying Plaintiff's motion, the Magistrate Judge found "no reason to doubt Defendants' representation that [Defendants] provided Plaintiff with all of the medical records that they received from the ADC." (Doc. 191 at 4). As a result, the Magistrate Judge found that Defendants produced Plaintiff's medical records in compliance with her June 22, 2012 Order and that there was no basis for compelling further production.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's findings and argues that those findings are contradicted by "all of the evidence" Plaintiff submitted in support of his motion in the form of his affidavit. Plaintiff argues that he submitted a sworn statement in support of his motion attesting that (1) the medical records produced by Defendants were not in the same order that Plaintiff had previously seen them kept, were not otherwise correspondingly categorized and labeled, and were not in chronological order; (2) that Plaintiff was able to identify 29 documents missing from his medical records in addition to two notes and a voided prescription; (3) that Defendants failed to produce Plaintiff's county jail medical records; (4) that Defendants failed to produce all of the electronically stored data comprising his medical record; and (5) that Defendants have not been allowing Plaintiff to examine the original documents contained in his medical records. Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge's decision to deny Plaintiff's motion ...