From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stephen v. Zhang

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2013
No. 2:09-cv-1516 MCE CKD (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-1516 MCE CKD

01-17-2013

JIMMIE STEPHEN, Plaintiff, v. F. ZHANG., Defendants.


ORDER

Jimmie Stephen's ("Plaintiff") case is closed. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case on December 6, 2012 (ECF No. 164). On January 9, 2013, Jimmie Stephen ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion asking the Court to reconsider Magistrate Judge Delany's January 2, 2013 Order. (ECF Nos. 166 and 168).

Judge Delany's Order states:

[t]his civil rights action was closed on March 1, 2012. Plaintiff is advised that documents filed after the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. (ECF No. 166).

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 Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 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 & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 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).

Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The January 2, 2013, Order is therefore affirmed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 168) is DENIED;

2. The Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 166) is AFFIRMED; and

3. Documents filed after this Order is issued will be disregarded and no orders will be issued in response to future filings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Stephen v. Zhang

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2013
No. 2:09-cv-1516 MCE CKD (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)
Case details for

Stephen v. Zhang

Case Details

Full title:JIMMIE STEPHEN, Plaintiff, v. F. ZHANG., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 17, 2013

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-1516 MCE CKD (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)