Robinson v. Cates

Full title: ANDRE JAMAL ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATES, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 15, 2015

2:11-cv-2555 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015)

Opinion

ANDRE JAMAL ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATES, et al., Defendants. No. 2:11-cv-2555 MCE AC P United States District Court, Eastern District of California January 15, 2015

          ORDER

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND JR. JUDGE

         On December 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed December 23, 2014, denying plaintiffs request for counsel. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that the magistrate judge's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

         Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 65) is DENIED.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.