LOPEZ v. PETERSON, 2:98-cv-2111-MCE-EFB P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20151224740
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff filed a "Request for Court to Lift Dispositive Motion Deadline." ECF No. 435. On November 10, 2015, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff's Motion. ECF No. 436. On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's order. ECF No. 439. The Court construes Plaintiff's objections as a request for reconsideration. Pursuant to Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unl
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff filed a "Request for Court to Lift Dispositive Motion Deadline." ECF No. 435. On November 10, 2015, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff's Motion. ECF No. 436. On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's order. ECF No. 439. The Court construes Plaintiff's objections as a request for reconsideration. Pursuant to Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unle..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff filed a "Request for Court to Lift Dispositive Motion Deadline." ECF No. 435. On November 10, 2015, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff's Motion. ECF No. 436. On November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's order. ECF No. 439. The Court construes Plaintiff's objections as a request for reconsideration.
Pursuant to Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id. Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that the magistrate judge's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the order of the magistrate judge filed November 10, 2015(ECF No. 436) is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's order (ECF No. 439) is construed as a motion for reconsideration and DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
