Clifford George v. Thomas Edholm

MEMORANDUM

Clifford George appeals the district court’s decision denying his motion for summary judgment. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

George, who is incarcerated, appeared pro se in the district court. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report recommending granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees. The court noted that it disagreed with the magistrate judge’s decision to deem admitted a number of defendants’ requests for admissions to which George had responded late. However, the court found that Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(a) precluded it from reviewing the magistrate judge’s nondispositive order because George had not timely objected to that order.

We disagree. Rule 72(a) was not intended to deprive the district court of jurisdiction, but rather to create a waiver rule that prevents parties from belatedly objecting to orders. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 , 146 & n. 4, 106 S.Ct. 466 , 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Simpson v. Lear As tronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170 , 1174 n. 1 (9th Cir.1996). Since a district judge can always revisit one of its own orders regardless of whether the parties have objected, subject to due process constraints, it can certainly review the…