Davis v. Walker et al

Filing 289

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/24/2023 DENYING 287 Objections, construed as Motion to Reconsider, filed by Kennard Lee Davis. (Perdue, C.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Kennard Davis,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:08-cv-0593-KJM-DB

v.
James Walker, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

ORDER

Plaintiff,

19
20

No. 2:10-cv-2139-KJM-DB

Kennard Davis,

v.
James Walker, et al.,

21

Defendants.

22
23

Plaintiff Kennard Davis objects to the magistrate judge’s recent order, which was filed in

24

both of the cases captioned above. See Objections, Case No. 08-593, ECF No. 287; Objections,

25

Case No. 10-2139, ECF No. 364. The court construes these objections as untimely requests for

26

reconsideration under Local Rule 303(c) and extends the deadline for reconsideration on its own

27

motion.

1

1

When a litigant asks a district judge to review a magistrate judge’s orders under Local

2

Rule 303, the district judge must decide whether the magistrate judge’s order was “clearly

3

erroneous or contrary to law.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

72(a). The magistrate judge’s order is not clearly in error, and it is not contrary to law.

5

Plaintiff’s objections, construed as motions to reconsider, are denied. This order resolves

6

ECF No. 287 in Case No. 08-593 and ECF No. 364 in Case No. 10-2139.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 24, 2023.

9

2