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.

Peter Graves v. Hilary Random Clinton and James Steinberg

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 3, 2011

PETER GRAVES,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
HILARY RANDOM CLINTON AND JAMES STEINBERG, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Plaintiff Peter Graves ("Plaintiff"), who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's two Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 36 and 37) seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's April 6 and April 8 Orders (ECF Nos. 33 and 35) denying multiple of Plaintiff's Motions to Add New Discovery Exhibits (ECF Nos. 28-32, 34).*fn1

In reviewing a magistrate judge's determination, the assigned judge shall apply the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review set forth in Eastern District of California Local Rule 303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).*fn2 Under this standard, the Court must accept the magistrate judge's decision unless it has a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). If the Court believes the conclusions reached by the magistrate judge were at least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety, the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997). Upon review of the entire file, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's rulings were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 36 and 37) are DENIED;

2. The Magistrate Judge's April 6 and April 8 Orders (ECF Nos. 33 and 35) are AFFIRMED; and

3. No further motions for reconsideration of this Order will be considered.


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.