Anderson v. McIntrny, et al.

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/20/15 DENYING 46 Motion for Reconsideration. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARTHUR ANDERSON,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0011 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

McINTRNY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On March 13, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying Defendant’s motion to

18

revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. ECF No. 44. Defendant did not file a motion for

19

reconsideration of that order until April 10, 2015. ECF No. 46. Local Rule 303(b), states

20

“rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the

21

Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.” E.D. Cal.

22

Local Rule 303(b). Defendant’s request for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s March 13,

23

2015 order is therefore untimely.1

24
1

25
26
27
28

Defendant argues that the Magistrate Judge should have issued a findings and
recommendation because the parties did not consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge.
However, Magistrate Judges have authority to issue orders, regardless of whether the parties
consent to have their case heard by a Magistrate Judge, as long as the motion is nondispositive.
28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The Court finds that Defendant’s motion to
revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status was nondispositive, and thus the Magistrate Judge had
authority to issue the order and motion for reconsideration time limits applied.

1

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 46) is DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: April 20, 2015

4
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