From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patton v. Loadholt

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 13, 2021
2:19-cv-0451-KJM-KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-0451-KJM-KJN P

07-13-2021

ANTHONY L. PATTON, Plaintiff, v. F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., Defendant.


ORDER

With reference to the mailbox rule, on December 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed December 15, 2020, denying plaintiffs motion for additional discovery. ECF No. 95. As provided by 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 file, the court finds the magistrate judge's ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed December 15, 2020, is affirmed.


Summaries of

Patton v. Loadholt

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 13, 2021
2:19-cv-0451-KJM-KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2021)
Case details for

Patton v. Loadholt

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY L. PATTON, Plaintiff, v. F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 13, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-0451-KJM-KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2021)