Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02269/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02269-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK MICHAEL HAMER;

DONNA LEE HAMER, No. 2:08-cv-02269-MCE-EFB PS

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

EL DORADO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Presently before the Court is a document filed by Plaintiffs 

Patrick M. Hamer and Donna Lee Hamer, proceeding in pro se in

this matter (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs’ filing

(Docket No. 79) is alternatively styled in three different

fashions. First, the caption refers to a “Request for

Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s

Ruling” on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 42). 

Second, Plaintiffs purport to file an “Objection” to this Court’s

March 19, 2010 Order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations dismissing the case (even though Plaintiffs were

afforded leave to amend certain of their claims).

Case 2:08-cv-02269-KJM -EFB Document 81 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Third, Plaintiffs object to a non-Article III Judge adjudicating

the subject Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiffs appear to misapprehend the fact that, by issuing

its March 19, 2010 Order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations, this Court has already engaged in a de novo

review of the legal conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. 

Given that review, Plaintiffs’ first and third requests are

DENIED inasmuch as the requested review by the undersigned, as an

Article III judge of this Court, has already taken place.

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ second request, which appears to seek

reconsideration of this Court’s order approving the magistrate

judge’s findings, is also DENIED, without prejudice, for failure

to file a noticed motion complying with the requirements of

Eastern District Local Rule 230(j). Plaintiff’s so-called Motion

(Docket No. 79) is accordingly DENIED at this time in its

entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-02269-KJM -EFB Document 81 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2