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)

Download PDF
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?