Stephen v. Zhang et al

Filing 169

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/17/13 DENYING 168 Motion for Reconsideration; the Magistrate Judge's 166 Order is AFFIRMED. Documents filed after this Order will be disregarded and no orders will be issued in response to further filings. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JIMMIE STEPHEN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:09-cv-1516 MCE CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

F. ZHANG.,
Defendants.

16
17

Jimmie Stephen’s (“Plaintiff”) case is closed. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion

18

to reopen the case on December 6, 2012 (ECF No. 164). On January 9, 2013, Jimmie

19

Stephen (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion asking the Court to reconsider Magistrate Judge

20

Delany’s January 2, 2013 Order. (ECF Nos. 166 and 168).

21

Judge Delany’s Order states:

22
23

[t]his civil rights action was closed on March 1, 2012. Plaintiff is advised
that documents filed after the closing date will be disregarded and no
orders will issue in response to future filings. (ECF No. 166).

24

In reviewing a magistrate judge's determination, the assigned judge shall apply

25

the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Local Rule

26

303(f), as specifically authorized by Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under this

27

standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate Judge's decision unless it has a “definite

28

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
1

1

Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal.,

2

508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the

3

Magistrate Judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the

4

Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence

5

differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141

6

(9th Cir.1997).

7

Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling

8

was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The January 2, 2013, Order is therefore

9

affirmed.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 168) is DENIED;

12

2.

The Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 166) is AFFIRMED; and

13

3.

Documents filed after this Order is issued will be disregarded and no

14

orders will be issued in response to future filings.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: January 17, 2013
________________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18
19
20
21

DEAC_Signature-END:

22
23

c4d6b0d3

24
25
26
27
28
2