Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01227/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01227-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEXTER BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01227 MCE DB P

ORDER

On November 20, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate 

judge’s order issued October 31, 2019, which denied plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to 

file objections to the magistrate’s July 12, 2019, order. (ECF No. 15). Pursuant to E.D. Local 

Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to 

law.” Id. Having reviewed the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the 

magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

 Therefore, upon reconsideration, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order of the 

magistrate judge, issued October 31, 2019, which denied plaintiff a request for an extension of 

time (see ECF No. 12) is AFFIRMED. Significantly, too, while the Court views the magistrate 

judge’s order as correct and affirms on that basis, it also wishes to note that it nonetheless 

reviewed and considered the late-filed objections (ECF No. 13) prior to ultimately adopting the 

underlying Findings and Recommendations (ECF No 4) on November 21, 2019. ECF No. 14. 

Case 2:19-cv-01227-MCE-DB Document 19 Filed 02/05/20 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

Nothing in those objections persuaded the Court that the magistrate judge’s order of October 

2019 was improper.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-01227-MCE-DB Document 19 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 2