Graves v. Clinton et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/3/11 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 36 37 Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED. The Magistrate Judge's 33 April 6 and 35 April 8 Orders are AFFIRMED. No further motions for reconsideration of this Order will be considered. (Duong, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PETER GRAVES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:10-cv-03156-MCE-KJN

v.

ORDER

HILARY RANDOM CLINTON and
JAMES STEINBERG,

15
Defendants.
16
----oo0oo---17
18

Plaintiff Peter Graves (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro

19

se, brings this civil action.

Presently before the Court are

20

Plaintiff’s two Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 36 and 37)

21

seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s April 6 and

22

April 8 Orders (ECF Nos. 33 and 35) denying multiple of

23

Plaintiff’s Motions to Add New Discovery Exhibits (ECF Nos. 28-

24

32, 34).1

25

///

26
1

27
28

One of Plaintiff’s current Motions for Reconsideration
(ECF No. 36) is addressed to both the Magistrate Judge and this
Court. This Order disposes of both Motions to the extent they
are directed at this Court.
1

1

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the

2

assigned judge shall apply the “clearly erroneous or contrary to

3

law” standard of review set forth in Eastern District of

4

California Local Rule 303(f), as specifically authorized by

5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 636(b)(1)(A).2

7

magistrate judge’s decision unless it has a “definite and firm

8

conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

9

Products of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So.

Under this standard, the Court must accept the

Concrete Pipe &

10

Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).

If the Court believes the

11

conclusions reached by the magistrate judge were at least

12

plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the

13

Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have

14

weighed the evidence differently.

15

Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997).

16

Upon review of the entire file, this Court finds that the

17

Magistrate Judge’s rulings were neither clearly erroneous nor

18

contrary to law.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v.

24
25
26
27
28

2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the
district court judge to “modify or set aside any portion of the
[magistrate judge’s] order found to be clearly erroneous
or...contrary to law.” Similarly, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may reconsider any pretrial
order “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3
4

and 37) are DENIED;
2.

5
6
7
8

Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 36

The Magistrate Judge’s April 6 and April 8 Orders (ECF
Nos. 33 and 35) are AFFIRMED; and

3.

No further motions for reconsideration of this Order
will be considered.

Dated: May 3, 2011

9
10
11

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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