Hackney v. California Health Care Facility, et al.
Filing
22
ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/20/16 ORDERING that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed 3/11/16, is AFFIRMED re 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Jackson, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAM HACKNEY,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-2160 JAM CKD P (TEMP)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
On March 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s
19
order filed March 11, 2016, dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Pursuant to E.D.
20
Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or
21
contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the
22
magistrate judge’s 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 March 11, 2016, is affirmed.
25
DATED: May 20, 2016
United States District Court Judge
26
27
28
/s/ John A. Mendez
/hack2160.8
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?