Dearwester v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department

Filing 87

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 08/09/17 ORDERING that, upon reconsideration, the 80 05/26/17 Order of the Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-2064 MCE DB P

v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPT.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18
19

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an order signed May 25, 2017, the magistrate judge denied

20

plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 80.) On June 14, 2017, plaintiff

21

filed a document entitled “Motion for Relief from Magistrate Judge’s May 25, 2017 Order

22

Denying Appointment of Counsel.” (ECF No. 81.) The court construes plaintiff’s June 14 filing

23

as a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s May 25 order.
Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless

24
25

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it

26

does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

27

////

28

////
1

1
2
3
4

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the
magistrate judge filed May 26, 2017 (ECF No. 80) is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 9, 2017

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