From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Clays

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 21, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-2881 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-2881 MCE DAD P

08-21-2012

LUIS REYNALDO JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. D. CLAYS et al., Defendants.


ORDER

On April 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's screening order filed March 30, 2012, finding that plaintiff's complaint appeared to state a cognizable claim against defendants Baker and Speer for retaliation but failed to state a cognizable claim against defendant Clays for improperly confiscating his television and against defendants Harrington, Knipp, and White for their supervisory conduct and the way in which they handled his inmate appeals. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion fo reconsideration (ECF No. 16) is granted;

2. Upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed March 30, 2012, is affirmed.

____________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Johnson v. Clays

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 21, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-2881 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2012)
Case details for

Johnson v. Clays

Case Details

Full title:LUIS REYNALDO JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. D. CLAYS et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 21, 2012

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-2881 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2012)