Dudley v. Corizon Health Services

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Damian Dudley, No. CV-19-04507-PHX-DGC (JZB) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER vs. Corizon Health Services, et al., 14 Defendants.

16 Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge John Boyle’s order denying his motion to compel. Docs. 83, 88, 92.

18 The Court will affirm the order.

19 A. Standard of Review.

20 The Court may refer nondispositive pretrial matters to a magistrate judge to hear and decide. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LRCiv 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A party may file objections to the magistrate judge’s order within 14 days after being served with a copy. Id. The Court must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id.; see Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991) (a “magistrate’s decision on a nondispositive issue will be reviewed by the district judge under the clearly erroneous standard”); Mueller v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, No. CV 17-00571 HG-WRP, 2020 WL 557519, at *3 (D.

28 Haw. Feb. 4, 2020) (same).

1 B. Discussion.

2 Plaintiff moved to compel the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) to produce his medical records. Doc. 83. Defendant Corizon Health Services responded to 4} the motion, explaining that the ADOC had made the medical records available to | Defendant electronically, the records were in the process of being organized and prepared 6| for disclosure, and the records would be produced to Plaintiff within two weeks (the last week of December 2020 or the first week of January 2021). Doc. 84. In light of those | representations, Judge Boyle denied the motion to compel as moot on January 8, 2021.

9} Doc. 88.

10 Plaintiff objects to Judge Boyle’s statement that no reply had been filed, noting | that he filed a reply within seven days of being served with Defendant’s response.

12} Doc. 92 at 2 (citing the “prison mailbox rule”).! Plaintiff asserted in the reply that he | should not receive the medical records through disclosure by Defendant given that he had subpoenaed the records from ADOC. Doc. 91 at 2. But Plaintiff does not dispute that | ADOC provided the records to Defendant as stated in the response (see id.), nor does he | contend that he never received the records. Judge Boyle’s order denying the motion to | compel as moot is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Court therefore will | affirm the order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

19 IT IS ORDERED that Judge Boyle’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docs. 83, 88) is affirmed.

21 Dated this 10th day of May, 2021. °3 aul 6 Cae plhtl David G. Campbell 25 Senior United States District Judge | ited on the docket the following Monday. See Doc 01) uaa» January 7, 2071, and