(PC) Taylor v. Koubong ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAYNE TAYLOR, No. 2:24-cv-01871-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. KOUBONG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 16, 2024, the magistrate judge issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for 21 appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 10.) Pursuant to the mailbox rule, Plaintiff filed objections to 22 the magistrate judge’s July 16, 2024, order denying Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel 23 on August 11, 2024.1 (ECF No. 16 at 6.) This Court construes Plaintiff’s objections as a request 24 for reconsideration of the July 16, 2024 order. 25 /// 26 27 1 Plaintiff’s objections do not contain a proof of service. Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiff filed his objections on the date he signed the declaration attached to his objections. See 28 Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 Local Rule 303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no 2 | reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service 3 | of the ruling on the parties.” Jd. Including three additional days for service by mail pursuant to 4 | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the magistrate 5 || judge’s order of July 16, 2024, is untimely. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 16), 7 | construed as a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order filed July 16, 2024, 8 | denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 10), are denied. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: September 16, 2024 10 / i / 11 \ | 12 `` MA \ 13 Troy L. Nunley } United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28