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