WATTS v. RUGGIERO, 2:13-cv-1749 TLN AC P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20141231874
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed November 21, 2014, denying Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 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
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed November 21, 2014, denying Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 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 H..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed November 21, 2014, denying Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 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 November 21, 2014, is affirmed.
Source: Leagle
