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.)

Download PDF
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?