Becker et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. et al

Filing 196

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER 195 signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/24/14. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENNLY R. BECKER, ET AL.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:10-cv-2799 TLN KJN

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, INC., ET
AL.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Dennly R. Becker’s (“Plaintiff”) pro
se Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling (ECF No.

19
195). On April 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to allow Plaintiff
20
to file a fourth amended complaint. (See ECF No. 188.) This motion was filed seven weeks after
21
the close of discovery and almost four years after the initiation of this lawsuit. Defendant Wells
22

Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. opposed Plaintiff’s motion claiming that Plaintiff’s proposed amendment

23
would prejudice it and require that discovery be reopened. (See ECF No. 191.) Magistrate Judge
24

Kendall J. Newman (“MJ”) issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for a multitude of

25
procedural and substantive reasons. (See Order, ECF No. 194.) Plaintiff filed the request at issue
26
27

in response to the MJ’s order.
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request and finds that Plaintiff has not presented

28
1

1

evidence that supports his contention that Magistrate Judge Newman’s findings were clearly

2

erroneous or contrary to law, as required pursuant to Local Rule 303(f). See also Fed. R. Civ. P.

3

72(a). Instead, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned decision. As such,

4

Plaintiff’s request is hereby DENIED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: June 24, 2014

8
9
10
11

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2