Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01254/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01254-16/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

 To the extent that plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order, 1

filed on September 25, 2007 (wherein plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied),

his request is untimely. See Local Rule 72-303(b) which states “rulings by Magistrate Judges

shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within ten court days . . .

from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.” E.D. Local Rule 72-303(b). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD DWANE BROOK,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1254-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

On December 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the

magistrate judge’s order filed December 5, 2007, denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a

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

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 the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 113 Filed 12/27/07 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

2

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

magistrate judge filed December 5, 2007, is affirmed. 

Dated: December 27, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 113 Filed 12/27/07 Page 2 of 2