Norwood v. Nanganama, 2:09-cv-2929 JAM AC P. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160308813
Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . On November 29, 2015, 1 plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed November 18, 2015, denying plaintiff's motion for an expert witness (ECF No. 153). ECF No. 160. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 303(f), 2 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
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . On November 29, 2015, 1 plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed November 18, 2015, denying plaintiff's motion for an expert witness (ECF No. 153). ECF No. 160. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 303(f), 2 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 magi..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
On November 29, 2015,1 plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed November 18, 2015, denying plaintiff's motion for an expert witness (ECF No. 153). ECF No. 160. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 303(f),2 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 November 18, 2015 (ECF No. 153), is affirmed.
FootNotes
1. Since plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2. Plaintiff indicates that the motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ECF No. 160. However, Rule 60(b) is for relief "from a final judgment, order, or proceeding." The order denying plaintiff's motion for an expert witness is not such an order.
Source: Leagle
