IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 3, 2009
GARRICK HERRINGTON, PLAINTIFF,
A.K. SCRIBNER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY DISTRICT JUDGE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding in pro per, has timely filed a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's March 12, 2009 Order.
Pursuant to Rule 72-303, Local Rules of Practice, a District Judge upholds a Magistrate Judge's ruling on a referred matter unless it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See Rule 72(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The "clearly erroneous" standard applies to a Magistrate Judge's findings of fact. Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993). "A findings is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Id. at 622. The "contrary to law" standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal determinations by the Magistrate Judge. FDIC v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D.Cal.2000); Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3rd Cir.1992). "An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure." DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F.Supp.2d 159, 163 (E.D.N.Y.2006).
Plaintiff makes no showing that the March 12, 2009 Order is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Order was within the discretion of the Magistrate Judge and he did not abuse that discretion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.