IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 25, 2013
MATTHEW G. JENNINGS, PLAINTIFF,
A. MORELAND, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On September 27, 2012, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order (1) construing plaintiff's motion to stay as a request for extension of time and granting him 30 additional days to file and serve his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment; (2) denying plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction; (3) construing plaintiff's motion to compel as an application for order to show cause why a contempt citation should not issue and denying the application; and (4) denying as moot plaintiff's motion for ruling on pending discovery. Plaintiff has filed objections to that order which are addressed to the undersigned.
Local Rule 303(b), provides that "rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen (14) days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties." Plaintiff concedes that his request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order of September 27, 2012 is untimely. Plaintiff states that his objections are untimely filed because he was transferred to Donovan State Prison, arriving on September 26, 2012, and did not receive the September 27, 2012 order until October 4, 2012. Plaintiff's objections were not signed and dated until October 20, 2012, which is more than 14 days after his receipt of the order. While plaintiff's objections are untimely, the court finds the two-day delay to be relatively insignificant, given the exigencies of prison transfer.
In any event, upon review of the matter, the court finds that the magistrate judge's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See E.D. Local Rule 303(f) (a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law").
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's October 26, 2012 objections (Dkt. No. 196), construed herein as a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order of September 27, 2012 (Dkt. No. 193), are denied. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to serve plaintiff with copies of the orders docketed as nos. 134, 135, and 136.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.