Diaz v. Fox et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/25/16 ORDERING that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed 2/24/2016 is AFFIRMED. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2705 JAM CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

R. FOX, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On March 4, 2016, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s

18

order filed February 24, 2016, staying discovery pending the resolution of defendants’ motion to

19

dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule

20

303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

21

Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s

22

ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

23

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

24

magistrate judge filed February 24, 2016 is affirmed.

25

DATED: March 25, 2016

26

/s/ John A. Mendez__________________________

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

28
1