Adams v. Easley et al

Filing 102

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 1/26/2012 DENYING 93 Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TYRONE ADAMS,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

CHARLES L. EASLEY, et al.,

12

Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-00826-GEB-CKD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

13
14

Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s

15

January 4, 2012 Order, which denied Plaintiff’s motions filed December

16

30, 2011 (ECF Nos. 78-81) and limited Plaintiff’s future filings to the

17

following documents:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

a. One opposition to any motion filed
defendants (and clearly titled as such);

by

b. Only one motion pending at any time. Such
motion must be properly noticed for hearing.
Plaintiff is limited to one memorandum of points
and authorities in support of the motion and one
reply to any opposition; and
c. One set of objections to any findings and
recommendations.
(ECF No. 87.)

25

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 303(f) and Federal Rule of Civil

26

Procedure 72(a), a Magistrate Judge’s orders shall be upheld unless

27

“clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire

28

file, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown the Magistrate

1

1

Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore,

2

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.

3

Dated:

January 26, 2012

4
5
6

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2