UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 17, 2011
TOMAS RAMIREZ GUILLEN,
MATTHEW C. KRAMER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SCREENING ORDER (ECF No. 23)
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
On March 28, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order dismissing Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 22.) Because the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, the March 28 Order was not dispositive of this action.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Objections filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Pursuant to Rule 72(a), a party challenging a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive ruling must show that such ruling was "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to the law." Any such objection must be filed within 14 days of service of the non-dispositive order.
Plaintiff's Objections in this case show that he disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's ruling, but fail to show that the Magistrate Judge's Screening Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. As such, Plaintiff's Objections pursuant to Rule 72(a) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint shall be filed within thirty days of service of this order. Failure to comply with this deadline or seek an extension prior to the expiration of this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.