From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKenna v. Cisneros

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 17, 2022
2:22-cv-01294-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01294-KJM-CKD

10-17-2022

Edward Phillip McKenna, Plaintiff, v. T. Cisneros, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff Edward McKenna moves pro se for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's order denying his request to appoint counsel. See Order, ECF No. 15; Mot. Recons., ECF No. 18. For motions that are not dispositive, such as a motion to appoint counsel, a district judge “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The court has reviewed the file. The Magistrate Judge's order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (identifying and applying relevant factors). Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 18) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

McKenna v. Cisneros

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 17, 2022
2:22-cv-01294-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2022)
Case details for

McKenna v. Cisneros

Case Details

Full title:Edward Phillip McKenna, Plaintiff, v. T. Cisneros, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 17, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-01294-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2022)