Manning, et al., v. CDCR, et al.,

Filing 128

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/11/14 ORDERING that nothing in the record indicates to this Court that the magistrate judge clearly erred or misapplied the law. Plaintiff's Motions (ECF Nos. 110 , 111 , 123 ) are thus DENIED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SHERMAN D. MANNING; et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:12-CV-02440-MCE-AC

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants.

17

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Sherman D. Manning’s multiple motions for

18
19

reconsideration (ECF Nos. 110, 111, 123) of the magistrate judge’s order permitting his

20

counsel to withdraw and denying Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of new counsel.

21

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 303(f), Plaintiff is entitled to

22

reconsideration if the magistrate judge’s decision is either “clearly erroneous or contrary

23

to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

While Plaintiff clearly disagrees with the magistrate judge, he has failed to identify any

2

facts or law supporting his assertion that reconsideration is warranted. Nothing in the

3

record indicates to this Court that the magistrate judge clearly erred or misapplied the

4

law. Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF Nos. 110, 111, 123) are thus DENIED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2014

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