Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02246/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02246-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE L. BALLANCE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2246 LKK JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On November 16, 2005, the magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s

request for an in camera review of confidential information and plaintiff’s request pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to stay disposition of defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. 

In the same order, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff a period of thirty days in which to file a

substantive opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On December 5, 2005,

plaintiff filed a document styled as objections to that portion of the order that denied his request

for in camera review of confidential information. 

On December 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file an

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. By order filed December 21, 2005, the

magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s request and granted plaintiff one additional period of fifteen

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02246-LKK -JFM Document 94 Filed 01/13/06 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

1

 Plaintiff’s request is dated December 1, 2005 and is thus deemed filed on December 1,

2005. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 

2

days in which to file and serve opposition to defendants’ motion. On January 3, 2006, plaintiff

filed a document styled as objections to that order.

 Good cause appearing, the court construes plaintiff’s objections as a request for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s orders.1 Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a

magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon

review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that either of the rulings by the

magistrate judge were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the orders of

the magistrate judge filed November 16, 2005 and December 21, 2005 are affirmed. 

DATED: January 12, 2006. 

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/ball2246.850

Case 2:03-cv-02246-LKK -JFM Document 94 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 2