(PC) Witkin v. Lotersztain

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 MICHAEL WITKIN, No. 2:19-cv-00406-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 V. ORDER 14 M. LOTERSZTAIN, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s | 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 | “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that it | 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 | 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 | Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was served on July 24, 2021 (ECF No. 39 at 17) and | 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 | Houston applies to civil rights actions).