Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hamer v. El Dorado County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 13, 2010

PATRICK MICHAEL HAMER; DONNA LEE HAMER, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EL DORADO COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Presently before the Court is a document filed by Plaintiffs Patrick M. Hamer and Donna Lee Hamer, proceeding in pro se in this matter (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs' filing (Docket No. 79) is alternatively styled in three different fashions. First, the caption refers to a "Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge's Ruling" on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 42).

Second, Plaintiffs purport to file an "Objection" to this Court's March 19, 2010 Order adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations dismissing the case (even though Plaintiffs were afforded leave to amend certain of their claims).

Third, Plaintiffs object to a non-Article III Judge adjudicating the subject Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiffs appear to misapprehend the fact that, by issuing its March 19, 2010 Order adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this Court has already engaged in a de novo review of the legal conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. Given that review, Plaintiffs' first and third requests are DENIED inasmuch as the requested review by the undersigned, as an Article III judge of this Court, has already taken place.

Moreover, Plaintiffs' second request, which appears to seek reconsideration of this Court's order approving the magistrate judge's findings, is also DENIED, without prejudice, for failure to file a noticed motion complying with the requirements of Eastern District Local Rule 230(j). Plaintiff's so-called Motion (Docket No. 79) is accordingly DENIED at this time in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100413

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.