IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 2, 2010
STEVEN A. MARTIN, PLAINTIFF,
A. MASURET, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On August 18, 2010, plaintiff filed an opposition (Docket No. 12), construed by the court as a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed August 3, 2010, dismissing all defendants except defendant Hamad. As the magistrate judge's order explains, plaintiff's second amended complaint fails to state cognizable claims against the other defendants because plaintiff simply alleges that they in effect conspired with defendant Hamad to retaliate against plaintiff or that they "contributed" to defendant Hamad's retaliatory actions . Plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating that those defendants explicitly or implicitly agreed with or contributed to defendant Hamad's actions. This court agrees with the magistrate judge's analysis.
Moreover, pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 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 August 3, 2010, is affirmed.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.