Matthew v. Lahey et al

Filing 84

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/9/11 that, upon reconsideration, the order of themagistrate judge filed October 14, 2011, is affirmed re 83 Motion for Reconsideration.(Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOSEPH B. MATTHEWS,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:09-cv-2415 GEB KJN P

vs.
LAHEY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

On October 28, 2011, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate

17

judge’s order filed October 14, 2011, disregarding plaintiff’s October 3, 2011 opposition.

18

Plaintiff claims he was required to oppose “any motion for summary judgment or dismissal of his

19

complaint” pursuant to the court’s December 8, 2009 order.

20

The court’s December 8, 2009 order informed the parties that certain motions

21

shall be briefed pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), later amended to Local Rule 230(l). On

22

September 9, 2011, defendant Basi filed an answer. On October 3, 2011, plaintiff filed a

23

document entitled “Opposition to Defendant[’s] Answer,” in which plaintiff states: “The

24

Plaintiff hereby files his opposition to the defendant[’s] answer to his complaint. . . .” (Dkt. No.

25

81 at 1.) The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff’s opposition disregarded because the court did

26

not order plaintiff to file a reply to the answer. (Dkt. No. 82.) The September 9, 2011 filing was
1

1

an answer, not a motion; therefore, no opposition was required under the court’s Local Rules. As

2

of November 8, 2011, defendant Basi has not filed a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary

3

judgment, and no other dispositive motion is pending at the present time.1

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

magistrate judge filed October 14, 2011, is affirmed.

9

Dated: November 9, 2011

10
11

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26

The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Lahey, Tan and Traquina was
granted on September 6, 2011. (Dkt. No. 73.)
2