IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 14, 2012
MILOS LEUBNER, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).
On February 17, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
In addition to filing objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's motion for default judgment be denied, plaintiff has also filed objections to the magistrate judge's ruling on plaintiff's discovery-related motions. The court construes these objections as a request for reconsideration. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs district judges to consider timely objections to a nondispositive pretrial order issued by a magistrate judge and to "modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." See also Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). "'A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Concrete Pipe and Prods. v. Constr.Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). "[R]review under the 'clearly erroneous' standard is significantly deferential . . . ." Id. at 623. Upon review of the magistrate judge's order, the undersigned does not find clear error.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 17, 2012 are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's January 20, 2012 motion for default judgment is denied; and
3. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.