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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?