AND NOW, this 9th day of February, 2009, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's appeal (Doc. 114) from the magistrate judge's order (Doc. 113) of December 10, 2008, denying plaintiff's requests to compel discovery, (see Doc. 100, Ex. A), and it appearing that the discovery disputes were fully briefed by the parties, (see Docs. 108, 111), that the magistrate judge resolved the disputes without holding a telephone conference, (see Doc. 114 ¶ 4), and that plaintiff contends that by foregoing a telephone conference, the magistrate judge stripped plaintiff of his "rights in discovery,"*fn1 (see Doc. 115 ¶ 4), and it further appearing that "[a] Magistrate Judge is accorded wide discretion in addressing non-dispositive motions," Marks v. Struble, 347 F. Supp. 2d 136, 149 (D.N.J. 2004); see also Doe v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006); Horn v. Kline, 1:06-CV-1038, 2007 WL 4198167, at *2-3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2007), that Magistrate Judge Smyser carefully considered each of the objections raised by plaintiff, (see Doc. 113), and that plaintiff "bears a heavy burden" in attempting to overturn the magistrate judge's discovery order, see Gorman v. Polar Electro, Inc., 137 F. Supp. 2d 223, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)), and the court concluding that the December 10, 2008 order (Doc. 113) issued by Magistrate Judge Smyser was not "clearly erroneous or contrary to law," see L.R. 72.2; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a) (stating that a district judge must "set aside" a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive matter when it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law"), it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's appeal (Doc. 114) from the magistrate judge's order (Doc. 113) of December 10, 2008 is DENIED.