Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00593/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00593-35/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 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 Plaintiff Kennard Davis objects to the magistrate judge’s recent order, which was filed in 

24 both of the cases captioned above. See Objections, Case No. 08-593, ECF No. 287; Objections, 

25 Case No. 10-2139, ECF No. 364. The court construes these objections as untimely requests for 

26 reconsideration under Local Rule 303(c) and extends the deadline for reconsideration on its own 

27 motion. 

Kennard Davis, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

James Walker, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:08-cv-0593-KJM-DB 

Kennard Davis, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

James Walker, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-2139-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 289 Filed 03/27/23 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 When a litigant asks a district judge to review a magistrate judge’s orders under Local 

2 Rule 303, the district judge must decide whether the magistrate judge’s order was “clearly 

3 erroneous or contrary to law.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4 72(a). The magistrate judge’s order is not clearly in error, and it is not contrary to law. 

5 Plaintiff’s objections, construed as motions to reconsider, are denied. This order resolves 

6 ECF No. 287 in Case No. 08-593 and ECF No. 364 in Case No. 10-2139. 

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

8 DATED: March 24, 2023. 

 9 

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-SCR Document 289 Filed 03/27/23 Page 2 of 2