From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Baughman

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 1, 2021
2:20-cv-1746 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-1746 JAM KJN P

06-01-2021

MARK ANTHONY BROWN, Petitioner, v. DAVID BAUGHMAN, Respondent.


ORDER

THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

On May 13, 2021, petitioner filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed May 4, 2021 denying petitioner's motion for appointment of 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 it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed May 4, 2021 is affirmed.


Summaries of

Brown v. Baughman

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 1, 2021
2:20-cv-1746 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2021)
Case details for

Brown v. Baughman

Case Details

Full title:MARK ANTHONY BROWN, Petitioner, v. DAVID BAUGHMAN, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 1, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-1746 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2021)