From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avina v. Medellin

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 15, 2010
No. CIV S-02-2661 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-02-2661 FCD KJM P.

April 15, 2010


ORDER


On February 23, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of appointment of counsel. On April 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Local Rule 303(b), states "rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen (14) days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties." Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order of February 23, 2010 is therefore untimely.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 131) is denied.


Summaries of

Avina v. Medellin

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 15, 2010
No. CIV S-02-2661 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010)
Case details for

Avina v. Medellin

Case Details

Full title:JOSE AVINA, Plaintiff, v. J.C. MEDELLIN, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Apr 15, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-02-2661 FCD KJM P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2010)

Citing Cases

Suarez v. Cate

While the members of the ICCs were not the "final decisionmakers" regarding plaintiff's gang validation…

Salazar v. Sullivan

Liability under section 1983 requires a showing of personal involvement, Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949, and it is…