Foust v. Hardin Insurance Company et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 09/28/17 ORDERING that, 12 Letter, construed as a Request for Reconsideration, is DENIED. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARL FOUST,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-1227 JAM CKD P

v.

ORDER

HARDIN INSURANCE COMPANY, et
al.,
Defendants.

16

On July 14, 2017, plaintiff filed a document the court construes as a request for

17
18

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s July 7, 2017 order denying plaintiff’s motion for

19

appointment of counsel. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be

20

upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court

21

finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to

22

law.

23

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No.

24

12) is denied.

25

DATED: September 28, 2017

26

/s/ John A. Mendez_____________ _________

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

28

1
2
3
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