(PC) Witkin v. Lotersztain ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL WITKIN, No. 2:19-cv-00406-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 V. ORDER 14 M. LOTERSZTAIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s 18 | order filed on July 14, 2021, denying Plaintiff's motion to modify the discovery order.! 19 Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless 20 | “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that it 21 | does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 22 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration (ECF No. 39), the order 23 | of the magistrate judge filed July 14, 2021 CECF No. 38) is AFFIRMED. 24 || Date: September 9, 2021 A J Wg JON 25 Troy L. Nuhley> United States District Judge 26 | Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was served on July 24, 2021 (ECF No. 39 at 17) and 27 | 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 28 | Houston applies to civil rights actions).