Savage v. Hubbard et al

Filing 123

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 05/24/11 ORDERING that the Court has considered plf's 122 Objections, construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, and that the 03/18/11 118 Order of the Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BOB SAVAGE,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:08-cv-1346 LKK JFM (PC)

vs.
SUZAN HUBBARD, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

On April 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a document styled as objections to the magistrate

17

judge’s March 18, 2011 order denying plaintiff’s motion for protective order and requiring

18

plaintiff to respond within forty-five days to interrogatories propounded by defendants. The

19

court construes this document as a request for reconsideration of said order.

20

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld

21

unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that

22

it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon reconsideration, the order of

2

the magistrate judge filed March 18, 2011, is affirmed.

3

DATED: May 24, 2011.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2