Humes v. Sacramento County Jail, 2:17-cv-1870 MCE AC P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190122b36
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . On January 7, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed December 14, 2018, denying appointment of counsel. 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 the magistrate judge's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORD
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . On January 7, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed December 14, 2018, denying appointment of counsel. 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 the magistrate judge's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDE..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
On January 7, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed December 14, 2018, denying appointment of counsel. 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 the magistrate judge's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed December 14, 2018, denying plaintiff appointment of counsel, is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
