Dillingham v. Garcia et al

Filing 110

ORDER OVERRULING Plaintiff's 82 , 86 , 90 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Orders, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/15/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JERRY DILLINGHAM,

12
v.
F. GARCIA,

15

(Doc. Nos. 82, 86, 90)
Defendant.

Jerry Dillingham (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16
17

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDERS

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:18-cv-00579-NONE-EPG (PC)

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 31, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s scheduling

18
19

order. (Doc. No. 82.) On December 6, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s

20

order denying his motion for a copy of the scheduling conference transcript. (Doc. No. 86).

21

On December 16, 2019, plaintiff filed objections, in part, to the magistrate judge’s order

22

allowing defendant to produce identified documents but to withhold others, following the in

23

camera review of those documents, based on the official information privilege. (Doc. Nos. 83,

24

90.)1

25
26
In plaintiff’s objections, he also requests appointment of pro bono counsel. However,
plaintiff also filed a separate motion requesting, among other things, appointment of pro bono
counsel. (Doc. No. 89.) The court will address plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono
counsel (Doc. No. 89) in due course.
1

27
28

1

1

Plaintiff’s “objections” to the magistrate judge’s non-dispositive orders relating to

2

scheduling and discovery matters, will be construed as a motion to reconsider those orders.

3

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge's order,

4

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

5

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

6

Local Rule 303. Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a

7

magistrate judge's ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction

8

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

9

2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926,

10

943 (7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct

11

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

12

The court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s orders (Doc. Nos. 75, 79, 83), as well as

13

the documents submitted for in camera review. These orders were not contrary to law or

14

clearly erroneous. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate

15

judge’s orders (Doc. Nos. 82, 86, & 90) are OVERRULED and his request that those orders be

16

reconsidered are denied.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 15, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2