Hollis v. Bal et al

Filing 200

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 8/29/23 DENYING plaintiff's objections 191 , 197 , 199 . (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS,

12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-02145-MCE-JDP (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

J. BAL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On August 1, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge denied without prejudice

18

Plaintiff Marvin Glenn Hollis’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Appoint Counsel and Request for

19

Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem. See ECF Nos. 185, 188. Plaintiff subsequently

20

filed Objections to the magistrate judge’s order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

21

Procedure 60(b)1 on August 7, 2023. ECF No. 191. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a

22

renewed Motion for Appointment of a Guadian Ad Litem and Counsel, which the

23

magistrate judge also denied without prejudice. See ECF Nos. 192, 195. On August 24,

24

2023, Plaintiff again filed Objections to the magistrate judge’s order. See ECF Nos. 197,

25

199. Because Plaintiff objects to nondispositive rulings, the Court construes Plaintiff’s

26

Objections as motions for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 72(a). See E.D. Local Rule

27

303(c).

28

1

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Rule 72(a) deals with nondispositive matters and provides the following:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or
defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide,
the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required
proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order
stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to
the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A
party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely
objected to. The district judge in the case must consider
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order
that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.

8

“A magistrate judge’s factual findings are ‘clearly erroneous’ when the district court is left

9

with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Miller v.

10

Akanno, No. 1:12-cv-01013-LJO-SKO (PC), 2015 WL 224811, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15,

11

2015). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes,

12

case law, or rules of procedure.” Id. (collecting cases).

13

After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motions, the magistrate judge’s orders, and Plaintiff’s

14

Objections, the Court finds that the magistrate judge’s orders are neither clearly

15

erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF Nos. 191, 197,

16

199) are each DENIED.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 29, 2023

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2