Young v. Qurishi, 2:15-cv-2674 JAM KJN P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180320925
Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . On December 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed November 20, 2017 granting plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order. 1 (ECF No. 38.) 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 it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly err
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . On December 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed November 20, 2017 granting plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order. 1 (ECF No. 38.) 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 it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erro..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
On December 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed November 20, 2017 granting plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order.1 (ECF No. 38.) 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 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 20, 2017 is affirmed.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's order extending the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines for both plaintiff and defendants.
Source: Leagle
