Ludwig v. Adult Protective Services of Sacramento County et al
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/20/11 ORDERING that the referral of this case to the magistrate judge is withdrawn and the case is referred back to the district judge; and the 6/29/11 status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently scheduled before the undersigned, 2 and 14 , is vacated. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SUSAN LUDWIG,
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-10-0325 JAM EFB PS
vs.
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES OF
SACRAMENTO COUNTY; VERNA
MAGNUSON; UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA DAVIS MEDICAL
CENTER; McKINLEY HEALTH
CENTER; CITY OF SACRAMENTO
POLICE DEPARTMENT; A. CROSBY;
MERCY HOSPITAL; and DOES 1-5,
ORDER
17
Defendants.
18
19
/
This case, in which plaintiff was originally proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned
20
pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On
21
April 19, 2011, the assigned district judge signed an order approving the substitution of David J.
22
Beauvais as plaintiff’s attorney of record. Because plaintiff is now represented by counsel, the
23
referral to the magistrate judge will be withdrawn and the case will be referred back to the
24
district judge. Therefore, the June 29, 2011 status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently
25
scheduled before the undersigned, Dckt. Nos. 2 and 14, will be vacated. The magistrate judge
26
shall continue to perform the usual discovery tasks associated with ordinary civil cases.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The referral of this case to the magistrate judge is withdrawn and the case is referred
3
4
back to the district judge; and
2. The June 29, 2011 status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently scheduled before
5
the undersigned, Dckt. Nos. 2 and 14, is vacated.
6
DATED: April 20, 2011.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?