situation depends on the particular facts of each case,” A-J Marine, Inc. v. Corfu Contractors, Inc., 810 F.Supp.2d 168, 175 (D.D.C.2011), quoting Judah v. Reiner, 744 A.2d 1037, 1040 (D.C.2000), and the Magistrate Judge found that defendant proffered .sufficient evidence in this case to show that an agency relationship existed between Arrowood and Sunrise, and that defendant was acting as an attorney in its communications with Sunrise on Arrowood’s behalf. The Court does not get to examine de novo the rulings made by the Magistrate Judge; rather, under Rule 72.2(c), the Court may revisit the July 31, 2015 Order only where it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” LCvR 72.2(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also Neighborhood Dev. Collaborative v. Murphy, 233 F.R.D. 436, 441 (D.Md.2005) (<HOLDING>). The Court does not find any such error here.
holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that a magistrate judges finding that an agents role consisted of transmitting information arid facilitating comrnunication is a factual finding entitled to significant deference holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding