Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01265/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01265-34/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TERRYLYN MCCAIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MANGHAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-01265-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21). On 

February 22, 2016, plaintiff filed a document captioned “Partial Objection and Strike Hearsay 

Allegations in Alternative Demands Offer of Proof from Tow Defendants. Fed. R. Evid. Rule 

103 and 1001.” ECF No. 222. Plaintiff’s filing is difficult to understand, but it seems to be a 

motion for a court order requiring defendants to produce “offers of proof” in support of certain 

assertions they have made in certain filings. Such a motion has no basis in the federal rules or 

applicable law, and is simply not cognizable in this court or any other. 

To the extent that plaintiff purports to object to the court’s order at ECF No. 209, there is 

no basis for objection. The order was not a recommendation to the district judge, to which 

objections are entertained pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)&(C). Rather, the order was 

within the authority of the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff has 

presented no grounds for reconsideration of that order. 

Case 2:11-cv-01265-KJM-AC Document 225 Filed 02/24/16 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

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 222, is 

DENIED. 

DATED: February 23, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-01265-KJM-AC Document 225 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 2