Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00066/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00066-39/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX LAMOTA MARTI, 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

vs. (Doc. 218.) 

F. PADILLA, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Alex Lamota Marti (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

motion for reconsideration by the undersigned, pursuant to Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),

of the Magistrate Judge’s Order of August 31, 2011, which granted in part Plaintiff’s all-inclusive

motion to compel and closed discovery except for limited purpose. (Doc. 218.)

Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(a) Nondispositive Matters. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s

claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the

magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when

appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and

file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A

party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The

district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set

aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

1

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 248 Filed 03/20/12 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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), “[a] judge of the court may reconsider [pretrial matters

determined by a magistrate judge] where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order by the District Judge assigned

to this action. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 72(a) and § 636(b), the undersigned District

Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill has conducted a de novo review of this matter. Having carefully reviewed

the file, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Order issued on August 31, 2011, to be supported by

the record, the law, and proper analysis. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration, filed on August 31, 2011, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00066-LJO-BAM Document 248 Filed 03/20/12 Page 2 of 2