Norwood v Nanganama, et al.,

Filing 171

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/4/16 ORDERING that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed November 18, 2015 (ECF No. 153), is affirmed. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY NORWOOD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:09-cv-2929 JAM AC P

v.

ORDER

NANGANAMA, et al.,

15

Defendant.

16
On November 29, 2015,1 plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate

17
18

judge’s order filed November 18, 2015, denying plaintiff’s motion for an expert witness (ECF

19

No. 153). ECF No. 160. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule

20

303(f),2 a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

21

Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s

22

ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

23

////

24

////

25
1

26
27
28

Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
Plaintiff indicates that the motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
ECF No. 160. However, Rule 60(b) is for relief “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.”
The order denying plaintiff’s motion for an expert witness is not such an order.
1

1

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

2

magistrate judge filed November 18, 2015 (ECF No. 153), is affirmed.

3

DATED: March 4, 2016

4

/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2