IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 21, 2008
EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II, PLAINTIFF,
TOM L. CAREY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On August 1, 2008, plaintiff filed a "motion for objection" to the magistrate judge's order filed July 22, 2008, vacating the August 11, 2008 trial confirmation hearing. The court construes this motion as a request for reconsideration. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(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.
In the same motion, the plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel. For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's July 28, 2008 order, that request is denied. To the extent that the plaintiff's motion seeks reconsideration of the July 28, 2008 denial of appointment of counsel, the court cannot conclude that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's August 1, 2008, motion for objection (# 186) is construed as a request for reconsideration;
2. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed July 22, 2008, is affirmed.
3. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is denied.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.