Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02336/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02336-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Robert Craig Harris
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ROBERT CRAIG HARRIS,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-09-2336 WBS GGH

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On December 21, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Objections were filed on

January 12, 2010, and have been considered by the court. As the objections address the order

portion of the magistrate’s opinion, the objections also will be construed as a motion for

reconsideration.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

Case 2:09-cv-02336-WBS-GGH Document 14 Filed 02/04/10 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

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

Plaintiff seeks to be relieved of the magistrate judge’s order imposing $500 in

sanctions. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), 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 it does

not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Plaintiff did not respond to two orders to show cause. Having ignored these

orders, a response which may well have excused sanctions, when plaintiff finally responded to

the ultimate order and findings and recommendations, his explanation that “having not ever

practiced in this court previously, or at least since this district adopted the e-filing system,” is

belied by his filing history in this court, comprised of five previous cases, one of which contains

a pleading e-filed by Mr. Dedman. See Civ.S. 07-1265 JAM JFM (e-filed); Civ.S. 04-1155

LKK JFM; Civ.S. 02-2249 WBS GGH; Civ.S. 03-0845 LJO DLB; Civ.S. 88-0756 DFL PAN.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The order of the magistrate judge filed December 21, 2009, is affirmed. 

2. Plaintiff’s counsel shall pay $500 in sanctions to the court forthwith.

3. This case is restored to the active calendar and referred back to the assigned

Magistrate Judge for such further proceedings as are appropriate.

DATED: February 3, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-02336-WBS-GGH Document 14 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2