From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stanford v. Gonzales

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 1, 2011
No. CIV S-10-438 FCD DAD P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-438 FCD DAD P.

February 1, 2011


ORDER


On January 20, 2011, petitioner filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed December 21, 2010, which ordered that petitioner's November 1, 2010 motion for partial summary judgment be construed as supplemental points and authorities in support of the habeas corpus petition, and denied petitioner's December 1, 2010 motion for sanctions. 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.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed December 21, 2010, is affirmed.

On its face, petitioner's motion for reconsideration is untimely. See E.D. Local Rule 303(b). However, petitioner informs the court that he did not receive the December 21, 2010 order until January 10, 2011, and that he gave his motion for reconsideration to prison authorities for mailing on January 16, 2011. Accordingly, the court will deem petitioner's motion for reconsideration timely filed.

DATED: February 1, 2011.


Summaries of

Stanford v. Gonzales

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 1, 2011
No. CIV S-10-438 FCD DAD P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Stanford v. Gonzales

Case Details

Full title:MURRAY STANFORD, Petitioner, v. WARDEN GONZALES, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-438 FCD DAD P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011)