From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Witkin v. Lotersztain

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 9, 2021
2:19-cv-00406-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-00406-TLN-KJN

09-09-2021

MICHAEL WITKIN, Plaintiff, v. M. LOTERSZTAIN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge

On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed on July 14, 2021, denying Plaintiffs motion to modify the discovery order.

Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration was served on July 24, 2021 (ECF No. 39 at 17) and was therefore timely filed under the mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2009) (mailbox rule articulated in Houston applies to civil rights actions).

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 (ECF No. 39), the order of the magistrate judge filed July 14, 2021 (ECF No. 38) is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Witkin v. Lotersztain

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 9, 2021
2:19-cv-00406-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2021)
Case details for

Witkin v. Lotersztain

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL WITKIN, Plaintiff, v. M. LOTERSZTAIN, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 9, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-00406-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2021)