Dillingham v. Garcia et al

Filing 158

ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 157 Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/17/2021.(Flores, E)

Case 1:18-cv-00579-NONE-EPG Document 158 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JERRY DILLINGHAM,

12
13
14
15

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

Plaintiff,
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDER

v.
F. GARCIA,
Defendant.

16

(Doc. No. 157)

17
18
19

Jerry Dillingham (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

On September 2, 2021, plaintiff filed what the court construes as objections to the

21

magistrate judge’s order denying plaintiff’s second request for appointment of an expert witness

22

(Doc. No. 156.) (Doc. No. 157.)

23

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

24

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

25

part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 303. Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court

27

may overturn a magistrate judge's ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and

28

firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group,
1

Case 1:18-cv-00579-NONE-EPG Document 158 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 2
1

Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd.,

2

126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may

3

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

4

It does not appear that plaintiff timely filed his objections. However, the court has

5

reviewed the magistrate judge’s order (Doc. No. 156), and it was not contrary to law or clearly

6

erroneous. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order, (Doc. No. 157), are

7

overruled.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 17, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2