Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLY LOUEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

BRIAN TWEDT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:04-CV-6556-REC-SMS

ORDER VACATING HEARING SET FOR

FEBRUARY 28, 2006, ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC.

69)

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER TO BE

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY

THE DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 69)

Date: March 27, 2006

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Courtroom: 1

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303. 

The undersigned Magistrate Judge conducted informal

telephonic conferences concerning a discovery dispute regarding a

mental examination of Plaintiff on November 4, 2005, when the

Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 80 Filed 02/17/06 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

27

28

2

a mental examination; and on November 30, 2005, after which the

Court issued an order on December 22, 2005. At the hearing on the

motion for sanctions on January 20, 2006, the undersigned

Magistrate Judge noted that after repeated consideration of the

discovery dispute and rulings thereon, the appropriate remedy for

review of the order on the motion would be review by the district

judge. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed the motion for

reconsideration within ten days of the Magistrate’s ruling, and

briefing is in progress.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on the motion for sanctions IS

DEEMED to be a motion for reconsideration by the district judge

of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(a) and Local Rule 72-303(c). 

The hearing set before the Magistrate Judge on February 28,

2006, IS VACATED. 

A hearing before District Judge Robert E. Coyle on the

motion IS SET for March 27, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 80 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2