Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03045/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03045-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arya
Defendant
Lamont Crossley
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMONT CROSSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ARYA,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-3045 DJC CSK P

ORDER

Pursuant to the mailbox rule, on June 4, 2024 Plaintiff filed an opposition to the 

Magistrate Judge’s May 29, 2024 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 

counsel. This Court construes Plaintiff’s opposition as a request for reconsideration of 

the May 29, 2024 order. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a Magistrate Judge’s 

orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. 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.

////

////

////

////

///

Case 2:23-cv-03045-DJC-CSK Document 24 Filed 08/02/24 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

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

magistrate judge filed May 29, 2024, is affirmed. This matter is referred back to the 

assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2024 

Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cross3045.850

Case 2:23-cv-03045-DJC-CSK Document 24 Filed 08/02/24 Page 2 of 2