Thomas v. Antipov et al

Filing 107

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/18/14 DENYING 102 Motion for Reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge's 101 Order is AFFIRMED; the Clerk of the Court SHALL TERMINATE 102 . (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMAAL THOMAS,

12

No. 2:11-cv-1138-MCE-EFB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ANTIPOV, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
On November 19, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued an order, ECF No. 101, denying

17
18

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order. In a motion dated December 9, 2013, Plaintiff

19

requested reconsideration of that Order. ECF No. 102. Local Rule 303(b), states “rulings by

20

Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within

21

fourteen days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.” Plaintiff’s request for

22

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order of November 19, 2013 is therefore untimely.
In an abundance of caution, however, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion on the

23
24

merits. Local Rule 303(f) provides that magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly

25

erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that it does not

26

appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The November

27

19, 2013 order, ECF No. 101, is therefore, affirmed.

28

///
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 102, is DENIED;

3

2. The Magistrate Judge's November 19, 2013 Order, ECF No. 101, is AFFIRMED;

4

3. The Clerk of the Court SHALL TERMINATE docket number 102.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: February 18, 2014

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