WILLIAMS v. FREEZE, 2:12-cv-2894 KJM KJN P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140604b15
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. On April 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed March 17, 2014, denying plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Under E.D. 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. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY OR
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. On April 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed March 17, 2014, denying plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Under E.D. 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. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORD..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
On April 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed March 17, 2014, denying plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Under E.D. 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.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed March 17, 2014, is affirmed.
Source: Leagle
