From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCoy v. Terhune

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 7, 2006
No. CIV S-01-1218 DFL GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-01-1218 DFL GGH P.

August 7, 2006


ORDER


On December 12, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying plaintiff's November 10, 2005, motion for the appointment of counsel and October 21, 2005, request to stay proceedings, construed as a request pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f).

On December 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration of this order. On January 19, 2006, the court granted plaintiff's request for extension of time. On January 25, 2006, plaintiff filed his request for reconsideration.

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(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.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed December 12, 2005, is affirmed.


Summaries of

McCoy v. Terhune

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 7, 2006
No. CIV S-01-1218 DFL GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2006)
Case details for

McCoy v. Terhune

Case Details

Full title:EVERETT L. McCOY, Plaintiff, v. CAL. A. TERHUNE, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Aug 7, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-01-1218 DFL GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2006)