HOLLIS v. GORBY, 2:09-cv-1627 JAM CKD P. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120727740
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. On June 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's June 6, 2012 order granting defendants $2,058.19 in costs and fees associated with their bringing a motion to compel plaintiff to be deposed which was granted. 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 ma
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. On June 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's June 6, 2012 order granting defendants $2,058.19 in costs and fees associated with their bringing a motion to compel plaintiff to be deposed which was granted. 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 mag..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
On June 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's June 6, 2012 order granting defendants $2,058.19 in costs and fees associated with their bringing a motion to compel plaintiff to be deposed which was granted. 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 June 6, 2012, is affirmed.
Source: Leagle
