From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Kuerston

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jan 2, 2023
2:19-cv-00450-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2023)

Opinion

2:19-cv-00450-TLN-KJN

01-02-2023

KENNETH LEE TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. KUERSTON, et al., Defendant.


ORDER

Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge

Pursuant to the mailbox rule, on November 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the November 7, 2022 Order (ECF No 152), directing Plaintiff to immediately return to Defense counsel all documents in his possession marked “Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only” (ECF No. 158 at 3-4). The Court construes Plaintiff's Opposition as a request for reconsideration.

Although Plaintiff's request for reconsideration is untimely by one day, the Court considers the merits of Plaintiff's request. See Local Rule 303(b) (“rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) (an additional three days are added to this period when, as here, service of the Court's order is made upon Plaintiff by mail).

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.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the Order of the magistrate judge filed November 7, 2022 is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Kuerston

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jan 2, 2023
2:19-cv-00450-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2023)
Case details for

Taylor v. Kuerston

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH LEE TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. KUERSTON, et al., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jan 2, 2023

Citations

2:19-cv-00450-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2023)