MARTIN v. MASURET, 2:10-cv-0189 WBS DAD (PC). (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120507442
Visitors: 16
Filed: May 04, 2012
Latest Update: May 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. On April 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a document styled as objections to the magistrate judge's April 4, 2012 order denying his motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), to postpone consideration of defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. 1 The court construes plaintiff's objections as a request for reconsideration of that order. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. On April 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a document styled as objections to the magistrate judge's April 4, 2012 order denying his motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), to postpone consideration of defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. 1 The court construes plaintiff's objections as a request for reconsideration of that order. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary t..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
On April 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a document styled as objections to the magistrate judge's April 4, 2012 order denying his motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), to postpone consideration of defendants' pending motion for summary judgment.1 The court construes plaintiff's objections as a request for reconsideration of that order. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed April 4, 2012, is affirmed.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's objections are dated April 14, 2012, as is the certificate of service appended thereto and are therefore timely under Local Rule 303. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
Source: Leagle
