(PC) Morgan v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Dept. et al

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/15/2020 DENYING 45 , 46 Motions for Reconsideration. AFFIRMING 24 The Magistrate Judge's Order. No further Motions for Reconsideration of this order will be considered. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SAMMY DAVIS MORGAN, 10 No. 2:19-CV-1179-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 MORGAN, et al., ORDER 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 16 Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 45 and 461) for reconsideration of the 17 Magistrate Judge’s September 24, 2019, order. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local 18 Rule 303(f), a Magistrate Judge’s order shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to 19 law.” Upon review of the file, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was not clearly 20 erroneous or contrary to law. The September 24, 2019, order is, therefore, affirmed. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The motions for reconsideration (ECF No. 45 and 46) are denied; 23 2. The Magistrate Judge’s September 24, 2019, order is affirmed; and 24 3. No further motions for reconsideration of this order will be considered. 25 DATED: October 15, 2020. 26 27 The motions appear to be identical and it may be that two copies were inadvertently docketed by the court. Nevertheless, the court includes both in this order. 1 1 28

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?