Dicey v. Harrison, W. R., et al.

Filing 61

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/3/2011 ORDERING 57 that, upon reconsideration, 56 the order of the magistrate judge filed 1/4/2011, is AFFIRMED. (Reader, L)

(PC) Dicey v. Harrison, W. R., et al.

Doc. 61

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 The magistrate judge granted plaintiff a thirty day period of time in which to file and serve a motion to compel further responses to a request for production of documents referred to in the motion for extension of time but denied the motion in all other respects. 1
Dockets.Justia.com
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BERLAN LYNELL DICEY, Plaintiff, vs. W. R. HARRISON, et al., Defendants. / On January 31, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed January 4, 2011, denying in part plaintiff's motion for a sixty day extension of time to conduct discovery in this action.1 Defendants oppose the motion. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. ///// ///// ORDER No. 2:08-cv-2608 JAM JFM (PC)

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

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed January 4, 2011, is affirmed. DATED: March 3, 2011

/s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2