(PC) Johnson v. Lizarraga ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL WAYNE JOHNSON, No. 2:18-cv-03101-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOE A. LIZARRAGA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 19 On May 14, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s motions to 20 compel discovery. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate 21 judge’s order. ECF No. 39. 22 A magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to 23 law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). Under that standard, the court must 24 accept the magistrate judge’s decision unless it has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake 25 has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Const. Laborers Pension Trust for 26 So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993); Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 27 2002). 28 1 Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s ruling is not 2 clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id. 3 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that: 4 1. Upon reconsideration, the magistrate judge’s May 14, 2021 order, ECF No. 37, is 5 AFFIRMED; and 6 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 38, is DENIED. 7 8 9 DATED: February 8, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez 10 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28