Young v. Mandeville, et al

Filing 166

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/8/2009 ORDERING 161 that, upon reconsideration, the 156 order of the magistrate judge, is AFFIRMED. (Reader, L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. R. MANDEVILLE, et al., Defendants. / On June 24, 2009, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed June 10, 2009, denying plaintiff's motion for a further extension of time to file lists of exhibits, witnesses and pretrial conference statements. The magistrate had previously granted plaintiff an extension of time to file these documents. (Doc. No. 154.) Although the magistrate denied this request, the magistrate's pretrial order incorporated the pretrial statements plaintiff untimely filed on May 29, 2009 and June 15, 2009. No exhibit or witness lists were included in either statement, although the magistrate identified three potential witnesses (other than plaintiff himself) from plaintiff's earlier filings. Of these witnesses, the court stated that one would be permitted to testify at trial. The court could not similarly identify any potential exhibits, and absent any exhibit list, prohibited plaintiff from presenting exhibits at trial. Plaintiff's present request for reconsideration again refers to unspecified exhibits, but does not list them, and "requests this [that] court accept [plaintiff's] pretrial statement submitted on June 11, 2009" ORDER EDDIE YOUNG, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-2360 LKK GGH P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

and received by this court on June 15, 2009. The magistrate has already accepted this statement. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed June 10, 2009, is affirmed. DATED: July 8, 2009.