Bowell v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/2/2011 ORDERING that, upon reconsideration, the 36 order of the magistrate judge is AFFIRMED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JAMES BOWELL,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:10-cv-0397 JAM DAD (PC)

vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

ORDER
/

16

On March 31, 2011, plaintiff filed a document styled as objections to the

17

magistrate judge’s March 9, 2011 order denying plaintiff’s motion for a court-appointed

18

investigator. The court construes this as a request for reconsideration of that order. Pursuant to

19

E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or

20

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

21

magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.1

22

/////

23
24
25
26

1

To the extent that plaintiff’s March 31, 2011 motion includes a request for appointment
of counsel or a motion to compel further discovery responses, it is not properly before the district
court. See Local Rule 302(c)(17). If in fact plaintiff intends to move to compel discovery
responses and/or for appointment of counsel, he should file proper motion(s) before the
magistrate judge in accordance with the schedule set for this action.
1

1

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

2

magistrate judge filed March 9, 2011, is affirmed.

3

DATED: May 2, 2011

4

/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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