Hollis v. Gorby et al

Filing 114

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/26/12: The order of the magistrate judge filed June 6, 2012, is affirmed. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:09-cv-1627 JAM CKD P

A. GORBY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

On June 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate

17

judge’s June 6, 2012 order granting defendants $2,058.19 in costs and fees associated with their

18

bringing a motion to compel plaintiff to be deposed which was granted. Pursuant to E.D. Local

19

Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to

20

law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate

21

judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

22

/////

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////
1

1

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

2

magistrate judge filed June 6, 2012, is affirmed.

3

DATED:

4

July 26, 2012
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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