IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 9, 2009
ROBERT TUNSTALL, PLAINTIFF,
MIKE KNOWLES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On March 2, 2008, plaintiff filed a document styled as objections to the magistrate judge's February 19, 2009 order denying plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel. The court construes plaintiff's objections as a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order. 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.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed February 19, 2009, is affirmed. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied, without prejudice, at this time. To the extent that his motions relate to his alleged hearing impairment, they may be reconsidered at a later date if the case proceeds to trial.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.