Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00826-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE ADAMS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES L. EASLEY, et al.,

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:11-cv-00826-GEB-CKD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s

January 4, 2012 Order, which denied Plaintiff’s motions filed December

30, 2011 (ECF Nos. 78-81) and limited Plaintiff’s future filings to the

following documents: 

a. One opposition to any motion filed by

defendants (and clearly titled as such);

b. Only one motion pending at any time. Such

motion must be properly noticed for hearing.

Plaintiff is limited to one memorandum of points

and authorities in support of the motion and one

reply to any opposition; and

c. One set of objections to any findings and

recommendations.

(ECF No. 87.) 

Pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 303(f) and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(a), a Magistrate Judge’s orders shall be upheld unless

“clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire

file, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown the Magistrate

Case 2:11-cv-00826-GEB-CKD Document 102 Filed 01/27/12 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

2

Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is DENIED. 

Dated: January 26, 2012

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cv-00826-GEB-CKD Document 102 Filed 01/27/12 Page 2 of 2