Opinion
1:18-cv-00579-NE-EPG (PC)
09-17-2021
JERRY DILLINGHAM, Plaintiff, v. F. GARCIA, Defendant.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER (Doc. No. 157)
Jerry Dillingham (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 2, 2021, plaintiff filed what the court construes as objections to the magistrate judge's order denying plaintiff's second request for appointment of an expert witness (Doc. No. 156.) (Doc. No. 157.)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge's order, “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 303. Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a magistrate judge's ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.'” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id.
It does not appear that plaintiff timely filed his objections. However, the court has reviewed the magistrate judge's order (Doc. No. 156), and it was not contrary to law or clearly erroneous. Accordingly, plaintiffs objections to the magistrate judge's order, (Doc. No. 157), are overruled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.