Graves v. Clinton et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/8/2011 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 68 Motion is accordingly DENIED. All provisions of the Magistrate Judge's 67 Order remain in effect, including but not limited to the guidelines imposed for opposing (not later than September 15, 2011) Defendants' 59 Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment presently set for hearing on September 29, 2011.(Duong, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PETER GRAVES,
No. 2:10-cv-03156-MCE-KJN PS

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.
ORDER

14

HILLARY RANDOM [sic]
CLINTON and JAMES STEINBERG,

15
Defendants.
16
17

----oo0oo----

18
19

On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for New

20

Hearing” (ECF No. 68) to challenge the Magistrate Judge’s Order

21

in this matter dated August 29, 2011 (ECF No. 67).

22

will construe Plaintiff’s motion as a request for reconsideration

23

of the Magistrate Judge’s order under Eastern District Local

24

Rule 303(d).

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

The Court

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 Local Rule 303(f), as

4

specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)

5

and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1

6

must accept the Magistrate Judge’s decision unless it has a

7

“definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

8

Concrete Pipe & Products of Calif., Inc. v. Construction Laborers

9

Pension Trust for So. Calif., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).

Under this standard, the Court

If the

10

Court believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge

11

were at least plausible, after considering the record in its

12

entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it

13

would have weighed the evidence differently.

14

Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141

15

(9th Cir. 1997).

16

Phoenix Eng. &

Having read and considered the Magistrate Judge’s ruling, as

17

well as Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration, this Court does

18

not find the ruling to be clearly erroneous as that standard has

19

been defined above.

20

rulings were proper and defined appropriate parameters for

21

adjudicating this matter.

22

///

23

///

24

///

To the contrary, the Magistrate Judge

25
1

26
27
28

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, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may
reconsider any pretrial order “where it is shown that the
magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
2

1

Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 68) is accordingly DENIED.

2

provisions of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No. 67) remain in

3

effect, including but not limited to the guidelines imposed for

4

opposing (not later than September 15, 2011) Defendants’ Motion

5

to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 59)

6

presently set for hearing on September 29, 2011.

7
8

All

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 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