Dunn v. Swarthout et al
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/23/2013. Upon reconsideration, the 8/29/2013 37 Order by Magistrate Judge Hollows is AFFIRMED. That opinion also included Findings and Recommendatios which recommended other claims be denied. (Marciel, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN DUNN,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-2731 JAM GGH P
v.
ORDER
GARY SWARTHOUT, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
On September 16, 2013, respondents filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate
17
18
judge’s order1 filed August 29, 2013, granting an evidentiary hearing in regard to the claim of due
19
process violation of petitioner’s right to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing. Pursuant to
20
E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or
21
contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the
22
magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. An evidentiary hearing is
23
warranted based on the superior court’s failure to consider and reject petitioner’s declaration
24
regarding his request for a witness at his disciplinary hearing.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the
25
26
27
28
magistrate judge filed August 29, 2013, is affirmed.
1
That opinion also included findings and recommendations which recommended that other
claims be denied. (ECF No. 37.)
1
1
2
3
DATED: October 23, 2013
/s/ John A. Mendez_______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
4
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?