ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

In bringing the present Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 157), Plaintiff Walter Howard White ("Plaintiff") asks this Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge's April 16, 2015 Order (ECF No. 126) which adjudicated various requests in this matter made by both Plaintiff and Defendants. Said Order made numerous findings, and included rulings that1) granted in part and denied in part Defendants' protective order requests as to 71 of Plaintiff's 99 document production requests, 2) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's request for issuance of 10 subpoena duces tecum; 3) denied Plaintiff's previously rejected request to file a Second Amended Complaint; and 4) denied Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel.1 The Order further admonished Plaintiff from filing excessive documents that have unduly encumbered the action and consumed an inordinate amount of the court's limited resources.

In reviewing a magistrate judge's determination, the assigned judge shall apply the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review set forth in Local Rule 303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).2 Under this standard, the Court must accept the Magistrate Judge's decision unless it has a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997).

After reviewing the entire file, this Court cannot say that the Magistrate Judge's decision outlined above were clearly erroneous. As the Court already noted with respect to Plaintiff's additional reconsideration request (see Order, ECF No. 179, filed February 4, 2016) the Magistrate Judge's decision carefully weighed the competing concerns in this matter and offered a well-reasoned rationale for the determinations made therein. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 157) is accordingly DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.