Robinson v. Kate et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/15/2015 DENYING 65 Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANDRE JAMAL ROBINSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-2555 MCE AC P

v.

ORDER

MATTHEW CATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On December 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate

17
18

judge’s order filed December 23, 2014, denying plaintiff’s request for counsel. Pursuant to E.D.

19

Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or

20

contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that the magistrate judge’s

21

ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 65) is

2

DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2015

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2