Rouser v. Rutherford et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/31/09 re 40 ORDERING that upon reconsideration, the 38 order of the magistrate judge filed July 20, 2009, is AFFIRMED.(Duong, D)

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 1 vs. K. RUTHERFORD, et al., Defendants. / On July 31, 2009, plaintiff filed an opposition to the magistrate judge's order filed July 20, 2009, denying his motion for the appointment of counsel. The court construes plaintiff's opposition as a request for reconsideration. 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 July 20, 2009, is affirmed. DATED: August 31, 2009 /s/ John A. Mendez U. S. District Court Judge ORDER WILLIAM ROUSER, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1107 JAM GGH P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA