Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01305/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01305-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW JENNINGS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

A. MORELAND, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:08-cv-01305-HDM-RAM

ORDER

The plaintiff has filed objections (#81) to the magistrate

judge’s order denying his request for production of documents that

defendants claimed were confidential (#79). The magistrate judge

reviewed the requested documents in camera and determined that they

were confidential documents that, “for security concerns, should

not be in the possession of an inmate.” The magistrate judge

therefore determined that the documents need not be produced to the

plaintiff. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge may

Case 2:08-cv-01305-MCE-CKD Document 90 Filed 05/27/10 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

issue an order regarding any motion that is not dispositive of the

case. This court may reconsider a magistrate judge’s order

regarding a pretrial matter where “it has been shown that the

magistrate judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

The magistrate judge’s order (#79) was not clearly erroneous

or contrary to the law. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objection to the

magistrate judge’s order (#81) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This 26th day of May, 2010.

____________________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01305-MCE-CKD Document 90 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2