Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00624/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00624-16/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRICK HERRINGTON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-624 OWW/GSA

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION BY

DISTRICT JUDGE OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S ORDER (Doc. 57)

Plaintiff, proceeding in pro per, has timely filed a motion

for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s March 12, 2009

Order. 

Pursuant to Rule 72-303, Local Rules of Practice, a District

Judge upholds a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a referred matter

unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See Rule

72(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A). The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to a

Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact. Concrete Pipe & Prods. v.

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 60 Filed 04/06/09 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

Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993). “A

findings is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence

to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is

left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been committed.” Id. at 622. The “contrary to law” standard

allows independent, plenary review of purely legal determinations

by the Magistrate Judge. FDIC v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.,

196 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D.Cal.2000); Haines v. Liggett Group,

Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3 Cir.1992). “An order is contrary to rd

law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case

law, or rules of procedure.” DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F.Supp.2d

159, 163 (E.D.N.Y.2006).

Plaintiff makes no showing that the March 12, 2009 Order is

either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Order was

within the discretion of the Magistrate Judge and he did not

abuse that discretion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2009 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00624-DAD-MJS Document 60 Filed 04/06/09 Page 2 of 2