Windham v. California Medical Facility, et al
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 04/20/16 ORDERING that, upon 27 reconsideration, the 25 03/11/16 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
SAMUEL WINDHAM, JR.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-1058 MCE CKD P
v.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et
al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
On March 31, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s
19
order filed March 11, 2016, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice
20
to plaintiff filing a motion for summary judgment that complies with the requirements of Rule 56
21
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s
22
orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire
23
file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous
24
or contrary to law. The magistrate ordered Plaintiff to file a summary judgment that complies
25
with the requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and while Plaintiff
26
appears to attempt to correct that inadequacy through the content of his motion for
27
reconsideration, he must file a motion for summary judgment that itself complies with Rule 56.
28
/////
1
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the
2
magistrate judge filed March 11, 2016, is affirmed.
3
Dated: April 20, 2016
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?