Berreondo v. Akanno et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/25/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

MAXIMO BERREONDO,

9
10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00432-LJO-DLB PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 16)

v.
JONATHAN AKANNO, et al.,
Defendants.

13

/

14
15

Plaintiff Maximo Berreondo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

18

against Defendant Jonathan Akanno for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in

19

violation of the Eighth Amendment.

20

On April 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. On May 12,

21

2011, the United States Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

22

Doc. 9. On November 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed the pending motion for reconsideration. Doc. 16.

23

The Court construes the motion as pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

24

Procedure. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

25

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge’s order,

26

“[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part

27

of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); L.

28

R. 303. The assigned district judge may also reconsider any matter sua sponte. L.R. 303(g).
1

1

Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a magistrate

2

judge’s ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

3

mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d

4

980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943

5

(7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct independent

6

review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id.

7

Pursuant to Local Rule 303(b), “[r]ulings by Magistrate Judges pursuant to this Rule shall

8

be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen (14) days

9

calculated from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.” Plaintiff’s motion for

10

reconsideration is untimely. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

11

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s May 21, 2011 motion is denied.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:
b9ed48

May 25, 2012

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

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2