Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01355/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01355-20/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYL LYONS, No. CIV S-02-1355-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

BUSI, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate

judge’s December 19, 2007, order.

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate

judge’s order 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. Moreover, the motion is untimely. Pursuant to Eastern District of

California Local Rule 72-303(b), “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.” Here, the motion for reconsideration of the magistrate

Case 2:02-cv-01355-LKK -CMK Document 117 Filed 03/17/08 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 Pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), for pro se prisoner litigants

seeking reconsideration, the court has calculated the 10-day period from the date the motion was

delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court. Otherwise, the 10-day period has been

calculated based on the date the motion for reconsideration was actually filed. 

2

judge’s order was signed on January 17, 2008, and filed on January 24, 2008. Both dates are

more than 10 days from the date of service of the magistrate judge’s order.1

 The motion is,

therefore, denied.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion for reconsideration is denied; and

2. The magistrate judge’s December 18, 2007, order is affirmed.

DATED: March 14, 2008.

Case 2:02-cv-01355-LKK -CMK Document 117 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 2