*1 On September 20, 2023, plaintiff Marcus R. Ellington (“Plaintiff”) constructively filed[1] Objections to the Magistrate Judge's September 7, 2023 Order regarding Plaintiff's “Motion to Compel and/or Demand to Access Property.” Dkt. 82. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds the September 7, 2023 Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED and the September 7, 2023 Order is AFFIRMED.

A. THE OPERATIVE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS

On April 2, 2022, Plaintiff, a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) inmate currently held at California State Prison – Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), constructively filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Dkt. 21. The action is currently proceeding on the following claims: (1) a claim for injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., against defendants CSP-LAC Warden R. C. Johnson and CDCR Appeal Examiner T. Lee in their official capacity, alleging 15 C.C.R. §§ 3054.5 et seq. (“Sections 3054.5 et seq.”) discriminate against religious inmates because these regulations allow “removal from a diet that one must consume to practice his religion” and are “not the least restrictive means of enforcing the kosher diet rules”[2]; and (2) First and Eighth Amendment claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants E. Lake, Rabbi Lazar, T. Shorter, K. Saunders, A. Omeira, S. John, D. Bernal, and I. Young in their individual capacity alleging they used Sections 3054.5 et seq. to remove Plaintiff from the Kosher Diet Program with the intent of burdening Plaintiff's free exercise of his religion and preventing him from eating food that complies with his religion. Id.; see also dkts. 22, 24, 63.

On January 6, 2023, defendants Johnson and Lazar filed an Answer to the SAC. Dkt. 50.

On January 9, 2023, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order as to Plaintiff's claims against defendants Johnson and Lazar, setting a fact discovery cut-off on August 10, 2023 and a substantive motion cut-off on September 7, 2023. Dkt. 51. The Court further ordered “[a]ny motion challenging the adequacy of a discovery response, or seeking an order compelling further discovery, shall be filed and served not later than ten (10) calendar days after the discovery cut-off date.” Id.

*2 On August 28, 2023, defendants T. Lee, T. Shorter, K. Saunders, A. Omeira, S. John, and D. Bernal filed an Answer to the SAC. Dkt. 75.

On September 6, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting defendants Johnson and Lazar's request for an extension of time, until December 6, 2023, to file a dispositive motion. Dkt. 78.

On September 19, 2023, defendant I. Young filed an Answer to the SAC. Dkt. 80. On September 20, 2023, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order as to Plaintiff's claims against defendants T. Lee, T. Shorter, K. Saunders, A. Omeira, S. John, D. Bernal, and I. Young, setting a fact discovery cut-off on April 22, 2024 and a substantive motion cut-off on May 21, 2024. Dkt. 81.

B. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SEPTEMBER 7, 2023 ORDER AND PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS THERETO

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiff constructively filed a “Motion to Compel and/or Demand to Access Property” (“Motion”), seeking an order (1) requiring CDCR to provide Plaintiff with access to his stored legal materials, and (2) compelling defendants Johnson and Lazar to respond to Plaintiff's third set of Requests for Production. Dkt. 76.

On September 7, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order regarding Plaintiff's Motion. Dkt. 79. First, the Magistrate Judge denied without prejudice Plaintiff's request for an order requiring that Plaintiff be provided with his legal materials, reasoning “the Court will not dictate where or how [CDCR] and [CSP-LAC] comply with their constitutional obligations[.]” Id. The September 7, 2023 Order nonetheless advised CDCR and CSP-LAC employees that Plaintiff “has a legal action now pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California[ ]” and, “[a]s such, ... needs access to, among other things, legal materials regarding the pending matter, the prison law library, and writing materials, as permitted by prison rules, to represent himself in the pending proceedings.” Id. The Order further stated “[CDCR] and [CSP-LAC] shall provide [Plaintiff] reasonable access to materials and facilities that are necessary to pursue his pending case.”[3] Id. Second, the Magistrate Judge noted “any motion seeking an order compelling further discovery was required to be filed and served no later than August 20, 2023[,]” but “Plaintiff did not constructively file the instant Motion until August 23, 2023.” Id. The Magistrate Judge, therefore, denied Plaintiff's request for an order compelling defendants Johnson and Lazar's responses to Plaintiff's third set of Requests for Production as untimely. Id.

On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Objections to the Magistrate Judge's September 7, 2023 Order (“Objections”).[4] Dkt. 82. Plaintiff argues (1) denial of his request for an order requiring CDCR employees to provide him with access to his legal property was error because it “allow[s] them to seek and destroy” Plaintiff's evidence, and (2) denial of his request for an order compelling defendants Johnson and Lazar's responses to Plaintiff's third set of Requests for Production as untimely was error because he served his third set of Requests for Production prior to the discovery cut-off date. Id.

*3 The matter thus stands submitted.

A. APPLICABLE LAW

Magistrate judges have the authority to issue non-dispositive orders, including discovery orders and pretrial scheduling orders where pretrial proceedings have been referred to the magistrate judge. See Grimes v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) govern the authority of magistrate judges to enter non-dispositive discovery orders). If objections to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive order are timely filed, the district judge must consider such 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 ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to the magistrate judge's factual determinations and discretionary decisions ....” Gary Davis v. Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A., No. CV 06-4804-DDP (PJWx), 2010 WL 1531410, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2010). “Under this standard, 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.” Id. The “contrary to law” standard, on the other hand, “applies to the magistrate judge's legal conclusions, which are reviewed de novo.” China Nat'l Metal Prods. Import/ Export Co. v. Apex Digital, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

B. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE SEPTEMBER 7, 2023 ORDER ARE OVERRULED

Here, Plaintiff fails to identify any factual or legal conclusions that are clearly erroneous or contrary to law in the September 7, 2023 Order.

Plaintiff first argues the Magistrate Judge's denial of his request for an order requiring CDCR employees to provide him with access to his legal property “allow[s] them to seek and destroy” Plaintiff's evidence. Dkt. 82. This argument lacks merit. While the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's request for an order requiring that Plaintiff be provided with his legal materials, nothing in the September 7, 2023 Order permits CDCR employees to “seek and destroy” Plaintiff's evidence. In fact, the Court expressly advised CDCR and CSP-LAC that Plaintiff “has a legal action now pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California[ ]” and stated “[CDCR] and [CSP-LAC] shall provide [Plaintiff] reasonable access to materials and facilities that are necessary to pursue his pending case.” Dkt. 79. The Clerk of Court also sent a copy of this Order to CDCR and CSP-LAC. Id. Thus, the Magistrate Judge's denial of Plaintiff's request for an order requiring CDCR employees to provide Plaintiff with access to his legal property was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Plaintiff also argues the Magistrate Judge erred in denying Plaintiff's request for an order compelling defendants Johnson and Lazar's responses to his third set of Requests for Production as untimely because he served these Requests for Production prior to the August 10, 2023 discovery cut-off date. Dkt. 82. However, pursuant to the Court's January 9, 2023 Order, any motion seeking an order compelling further discovery was required to be filed and served no later than August 20, 2023. Dkt. 51. Plaintiff's focus on the date on which his discovery requests were served is, therefore, misplaced. As stated in the Court's September 7, 2023 Order, Plaintiff filed the Motion seeking an order compelling defendants Johnson and Lazar's responses on August 23, 2023, after the discovery motion deadline had passed. See dkt. 76 at 17. Thus, the Magistrate Judge's denial of Plaintiff's request for an order compelling defendants Johnson and Lazar's responses to his third set of Requests for Production as untimely was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

*4 Accordingly, the Court finds no basis to conclude the September 7, 2023 Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law and Plaintiff has failed to set forth any grounds requiring modification of the September 7, 2023 Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections to the September 7, 2023 Order are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the September 7, 2023 Order is AFFIRMED.