From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shockner v. Soltanian

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 15, 2022
2:18-cv-01948-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2022)

Opinion

2:18-cv-01948-TLN-KJN

06-15-2022

MANFRED SHOCKNER, Plaintiff, v. DR. SOLTANIAN, et al., Defendant.


ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the order filed March 18, 2022 denying Plaintiff's requests for subpoenas. (ECF No. 130.) The Court construes Plaintiff's objections as a request for reconsideration. Pursuant to 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 entire file, the Court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

In his request for reconsideration, Plaintiff requests that discovery be reopened. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff's request to reopen discovery is remanded to the magistrate judge for further consideration.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Upon reconsideration, the Order of the magistrate judge filed March 18, 2022 (ECF No. 126) is AFFIRMED;

2. Plaintiff's Request to Reopen Discovery, made in his Request for Reconsideration, is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further consideration.


Summaries of

Shockner v. Soltanian

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 15, 2022
2:18-cv-01948-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2022)
Case details for

Shockner v. Soltanian

Case Details

Full title:MANFRED SHOCKNER, Plaintiff, v. DR. SOLTANIAN, et al., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 15, 2022

Citations

2:18-cv-01948-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2022)