Davis v. Woodford et al

Filing 80

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/30/2012 AFFIRMING Magistrate Judge Brennan's 75 Order denying Motions to Compel, for Sanctions, and to Modify Scheduling Order. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. 2:05-cv-1898 JAM EFB P

vs.
D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,
Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

On October 4, 2012, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s order filed

17

September 25, 2012, which denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and related motions for sanctions

18

and to modify the scheduling order. The court construes plaintiff’s objections as a motion for

19

reconsideration. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s order shall be upheld

20

unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that

21

it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

22

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

23

magistrate judge filed September 25, 2012, is affirmed.

24

DATED: November 30, 2012

25
26

/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE/
1