Leubner v. County of San Joaquin et al

Filing 176

ORDER ADOPTING 171 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/14/20102. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and 167 Motion for Default Judgment are DENIED. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MILOS LEUBNER,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16
17

No. 2:08-cv-0853 GEB JFM (PS)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

18

On February 17, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

19

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

20

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed

21

objections to the findings and recommendations.

22

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

23

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

24

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

25

proper analysis.

26

/////
1

1

In addition to filing objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that

2

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied, plaintiff has also filed objections to the

3

magistrate judge’s ruling on plaintiff’s discovery-related motions. The court construes these

4

objections as a request for reconsideration. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs district

5

judges to consider timely objections to a nondispositive pretrial order issued by a magistrate

6

judge and to “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to

7

law.” See also Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “‘A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’

8

when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left

9

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Concrete Pipe and

10

Prods. v. Constr.Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting United States v.

11

United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “[R]eview under the ‘clearly erroneous’

12

standard is significantly deferential . . . .” Id. at 623. Upon review of the magistrate judge’s

13

order, the undersigned does not find clear error.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 17, 2012 are adopted in full;

16

2. Plaintiff’s January 20, 2012 motion for default judgment is denied; and

17

3. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

18

Dated: March 14, 2012

19
20
21

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
2