Jennings v. Moreland et al

Filing 90

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben on 5/26/2010 ORDERING that the magistrate judge's 79 order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. Pltf's 81 objection to the order is DENIED. (Engbretson, K.)

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 27 28 The plaintiff has filed objections (#81) to the magistrate judge's order denying his request for production of documents that defendants claimed were confidential (#79). The magistrate judge MATTHEW JENNINGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) A. MORELAND, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) 2:08-cv-01305-HDM-RAM ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

reviewed the requested documents in camera and determined that they were confidential documents that, "for security concerns, should not be in the possession of an inmate." The magistrate judge

therefore determined that the documents need not be produced to the plaintiff. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge may 1

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 27 28

issue an order regarding any motion that is not dispositive of the case. This court may reconsider a magistrate judge's order

regarding a pretrial matter where "it has been shown that the magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The magistrate judge's order (#79) was not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. Accordingly, plaintiff's objection to the

magistrate judge's order (#81) is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 26th day of May, 2010.

____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2