Prasad et al v. County of Sutter et al
Filing
102
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/12/13 ORDERING that defendant's #96 Request for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MARY PRASAD, et al.,
12
No. 2:12-cv-00592-TLN-JFM
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
ORDER
14
COUNTY OF SUTTER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
This matter is before the Court on a Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of
17
18
Magistrate Judge’s Ruling filed by Defendant County of Sutter (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 96.)
19
Plaintiffs oppose the request. (ECF No. 101.) This Court upholds a magistrate judge decision
20
unless it was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f); 28 U.S.C. §
21
636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s Order, Defendants’
22
Request for Reconsideration, and Plaintiff’s Opposition, the Court concludes that the Magistrate
23
Judge’s ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Therefore, Defendant’s Request for Reconsideration (ECF No. 96) is DENIED.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated:
July 12, 2013
27
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
28
1
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?