1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTON A. EWING, Case No.: 23-CV-1379-CAB-SBC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING OBJECTION TO 13 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDERS

14 CHARLES C. ROGERS and CHUCK “BUCK” ROGERS REALTY, INC., [Doc. No. 24] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 The Court is in receipt of a document from Plaintiff captioned “Notice of Appeal of 19 Orders at ECF Nos. 19 and 23, to District Judge.” [Doc. No. 24.] The document appears 20 to be an objection to two orders of Magistrate Judge Chu (1) denying Plaintiffs’ motions 21 for sanctions and (2) following a discovery conference with the parties. Upon 22 consideration of Plaintiff’s objection and of the docket in this case, the Court finds that the 23 orders in question concerned case management matters squarely within the discretionary 24 purview of the Magistrate Judge. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc.,

, 25 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that district courts have inherent power to control 26 their docket.”) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Judge Chu’s 27 denial of Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions and denial of Plaintiff’s requests for discovery 28 relief (which was made before discovery in fact has begun in this case) were not contrary 1 law. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for further briefing and 2 || OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections. 3 It is SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: January 2, 2024 (jb 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28