Opinion
No. 2:15-cr-125-GEB
04-26-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BENJAMIN MACIAS, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendant Benjamin Macias seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge's February 28, 2018, denial of that aspect of his motion to compel discovery relating to his request for his co-defendant's Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR"). Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 118.
The District Court may revisit and set aside a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order in whole or in part "where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); EDCA Local Rule 303(f). The District Court must accept the Magistrate Judge's findings unless it has a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). The Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have weighed the evidence differently. Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997). "An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure." DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F.Supp.2d 159, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); see also United States v. Mitchell, 128 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1271 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
In this instance, the magistrate judge heard argument from the parties and reviewed the PSR in camera. Minute Order, ECF No. 114. After review of the record and each party's argument, Defendant's motion, ECF No. 118, is denied because the magistrate judge's ruling is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
The April 27, 2018 hearing on the reconsideration motion is converted to a status hearing. Dated: April 26, 2018
/s/_________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge