Cyprian v. Givens et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 66 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/8/11; The Court does not find that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. If Defendants desire further clarification as to the Magistrate Judge's Order, such a request for clarification should be directed to the Magistrate Judge. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE CYPRIAN,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
DERRICK GIVENS, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:09-CV-2704 JAM-JFM
(PC)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court on a Request for

17

Reconsideration (Doc. #66) brought by defendants Derrick Givens, K.

18

Providence, E.A. Mitchell, L.N. Flores, Sgt. DeMars, K.L.

19

Dickinson, and L. Sanchez (collectively “Defendants”).

20

ask this Court to reconsider the Order (Doc. #61) issued on June 7,

21

2011 (“the Order”) by the Magistrate Judge denying Defendants’

22

motion to dismiss without prejudice.

23

reconsideration was brought pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule

24

303, and no opposition to the request was filed.

25

that the Magistrate Judge exceeded his authority under 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 636(b)(1)(A)-(B) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1)

27

when he issued the Order, because he ruled on the motion to dismiss

28

rather than issuing proposed findings and recommendations to this
1

Defendants

The request for

Defendants argue

1

Court.

2

withdraw a ground for the motion to dismiss (Doc. #59) and motion

3

for extension of time (Doc. #60).

4

reconsideration of these rulings.

5

The Order also dismissed as moot Defendants’ motion to

Defendants did not request

On non-dispositive matters, a Magistrate Judge’s order is

6

reviewed to ascertain whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary

7

to law.

8

2011).

9

dispositive matters as those pre-trial matters not dispositive of a

Ellis v. Cambra, 2011 WL 2192828, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 6,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) defines non-

10

claim or defense of a party.

11

2007 WL 1468992, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2007).

12

McColm v. Restoration Group, Inc.,

Because the Order denied the motion to dismiss without

13

prejudice, it was not a dispositive order and thus did not require

14

the findings and recommendations process.

15

address the merits of the motion to dismiss, and was thus not

16

dispositive of any claim or defense.

17

that Defendants are free to re-file the motion to dismiss, or may

18

file a motion for summary judgment, an answer, or a combination

19

thereof.

The Order did not

It is clear from the Order

20

Courts are necessarily vested with control to manage their own

21

affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of

22

cases.

23

already attempting to amend the motion to dismiss by moving for

24

permission to withdraw one of the grounds of the motion.

25

of the record, the denial without prejudice provides Defendants the

26

very opportunity that they sought to amend the substance of their

27

motion to dismiss.

28

authority to issue, so as to facilitate the expeditious disposition

Ellis, 2011 WL 2192828 at *2.

Here, Defendants were

In light

The Magistrate Judge’s order was within his

2

1
2

of this case.
The Court does not find that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was

3

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

If Defendants desire further

4

clarification as to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, such a request

5

for clarification should be directed to the Magistrate Judge.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 8, 2011

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3