(PC) Dillingham v. Garcia ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY DILLINGHAM, No. 1:18-cv-00579-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 13 v. ORDERS 14 F. GARCIA, (Doc. Nos. 82, 86, 90) 15 Defendant. 16 Jerry Dillingham (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 17 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 On October 31, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s scheduling 19 order. (Doc. No. 82.) On December 6, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s 20 order denying his motion for a copy of the scheduling conference transcript. (Doc. No. 86). 21 On December 16, 2019, plaintiff filed objections, in part, to the magistrate judge’s order 22 allowing defendant to produce identified documents but to withhold others, following the in 23 camera review of those documents, based on the official information privilege. (Doc. Nos. 83, 24 90.)1 25 26 1 In plaintiff’s objections, he also requests appointment of pro bono counsel. However, 27 plaintiff also filed a separate motion requesting, among other things, appointment of pro bono 28 counsel. (Doc. No. 89.) The court will address plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (Doc. No. 89) in due course. 40°UV SUINVYINE ES VUITTON ee 1 Plaintiff’s “objections” to the magistrate judge’s non-dispositive orders relating to 2 || scheduling and discovery matters, will be construed as a motion to reconsider those orders. 3 || Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge's order, 4 || “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part 5 || of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); 6 || Local Rule 303. Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court may overturn a 7 || magistrate judge's ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction 8 || that a mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 9 || 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 10 || 943 (7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may conduct 11 || independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id. 12 The court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s orders (Doc. Nos. 75, 79, 83), as well as 13 || the documents submitted for in camera review. These orders were not contrary to law or 14 || clearly erroneous. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs objections to the magistrate 15 || judge’s orders (Doc. Nos. 82, 86, & 90) are OVERRULED and his request that those orders be 16 || reconsidered are denied. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ on 19 Dated: _ April 15, 2020 La 1 £ aaa 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28