*1 HERNANDEZ, District Judge,
On June 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued an Opinion & Order (#27), in which he denied Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to state court and denied Plaintiff's motion for entry of default. On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections to the Opinion & Order. The matter is now before me pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
In accordance with Rule 72(a), "[w]hen 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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The standard of review for an order with objections is 1 - ORDER
"clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (applying the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review for nondispositive motions). If a ruling on a motion is not determinative of "a party's claim or defense," it is not dispositive and, therefore, is not subject to de novo review as are proposed findings and recommendations for dispositive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude they do not/do provide a basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Opinion & Order.
CONCLUSION
The Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Order [27].
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this day of , 2017.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ United States District Judge 2 - ORDER