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. Hillary Random [Sic] Clinton and James Steinberg

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 8, 2011

PETER GRAVES,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
HILLARY RANDOM [SIC] CLINTON AND JAMES STEINBERG, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for New Hearing" (ECF No. 68) to challenge the Magistrate Judge's Order in this matter dated August 29, 2011 (ECF No. 67). The Court will construe Plaintiff's motion as a request for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's order under Eastern District Local Rule 303(d).

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 Local Rule 303(f), as specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).*fn1 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 Calif., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for So. Calif., 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).

Having read and considered the Magistrate Judge's ruling, as well as Plaintiff's request for reconsideration, this Court does not find the ruling to be clearly erroneous as that standard has been defined above. To the contrary, the Magistrate Judge rulings were proper and defined appropriate parameters for adjudicating this matter.

Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 68) is accordingly DENIED. All provisions of the Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 67) remain in effect, including but not limited to the guidelines imposed for opposing (not later than September 15, 2011) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 59) presently set for hearing on September 29, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.