Marti v. Padilla, et al

Filing 216

ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 215 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/30/11. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ALEX LAMOTA MARTI,

11
12

Plaintiff,
vs.

13

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 215.)

F. PADILLA, et al.,

14

1:07-cv-00066-LJO-GSA-PC

Defendants.
_____________________________/

15
16

Alex Lamota Marti (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

17

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion

18

for reconsideration by the undersigned, pursuant to Rule 72(a), of the Magistrate Judge’s Order of

19

August 10, 2011, denying Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing the law librarian to make

20

copies, or in the alternative, denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 213.)

21
Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
22
(a)
23
24
25
26
27
28

Nondispositive Matters. When 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. A party may serve and
file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A
party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The
district judge in the case must consider timely 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).
1

1

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order by the District Judge assigned

2

to this action. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 72(a), the undersigned District Judge

3

Lawrence J. O'Neill has conducted a de novo review of this matter. Having carefully reviewed the

4

file, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Order issued on August 10, 2011, be supported by the

5

record, the law, and proper analysis.

6

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a

7

reconsideration, filed on August 26, 2011, is DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
b9ed48

August 30, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2