(PC) Dillingham v. Garcia ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY DILLINGHAM, No. 1:18-cv-00579-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 14 F. GARCIA, ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 (Doc. No. 157) 17 18 Jerry Dillingham (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On September 2, 2021, plaintiff filed what the court construes as objections to the 21 magistrate judge’s order denying plaintiff’s second request for appointment of an expert witness 22 (Doc. No. 156.) (Doc. No. 157.) 23 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge's 24 order, “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any 25 part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also 28 U.S.C. 26 § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 303. Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court 27 may overturn a magistrate judge's ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and 28 firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, 1 | Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 2 | 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court may 3 | conduct independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id. 4 It does not appear that plaintiff timely filed his objections. However, the court has 5 || reviewed the magistrate judge’s order (Doc. No. 156), and it was not contrary to law or clearly 6 | erroneous. Accordingly, plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge’s order, (Doc. No. 157), are 7 | overruled. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ 4 10 Dated: _ September 17, 2021 Da AD. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28