IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 4, 2010
ROBERT DUANE FRANKIN, PLAINTIFF,
BUTLER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Judge
On September 28, 2009, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed September 11, 2009, which struck plaintiff's second amended complaint, denied plaintiff's request for additional time in which to file a motion to compel discovery, denied plaintiff's motion for additional time to conduct discovery under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, granted defendants' motion for a protective order, denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' motion for a protective order, struck plaintiff's sur-reply, but granted plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a sur-reply limited as discussed in the body of the order.
Pursuant to 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 his objections, plaintiff asks for an extension of time in which to file an interlocutory appeal. The court declines to make such an order because none of these rulings are appealable orders. See Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 176 (2003). In addition, the matters plaintiff seeks to appeal do not present controlling questions of law about which there is substantial difference of opinion and so the court declines to certify them for interlocutory appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed September 11, 2009, is affirmed;
2. Plaintiff's request for additional time in which to pursue an interlocutory appeal is denied; and
3. The court declines to certify these issues for interlocutory appeal.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.