Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499-23/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 Plaintiff’s motion is entitled “Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” However, in the document, plaintiff challenges the magistrate judge’s

orders denying his three motions to compel and his motion for appointment of counsel. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s filing is construed as a motion for reconsideration of these orders.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, No. CIV S-05-1499-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

M. PENNER, 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 plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the

magistrate judge’s October 2, 2007, and October 4, 2007, orders.1

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 rulings were clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. The October 2, 2007, and October 4, 2007, orders are, therefore,

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 90 Filed 11/20/07 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

affirmed.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 85) is denied; and

2. The magistrate judge’s October 2, 2007, and October 4, 2007, orders are

affirmed.

DATED: November 19, 2007

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 90 Filed 11/20/07 Page 2 of 2