(PC) Johnson v. Lizarraga

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL WAYNE JOHNSON, No. 2:18-cv-03101-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER JOE A. LIZARRAGA, et al., 15 Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On May 14, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order. ECF No. 39.

A magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); E.D. Cal. L.R. 303(f). Under that standard, the court must accept the magistrate judge’s decision unless it has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Const. Laborers Pension Trust for So. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993); Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002).

1 Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s ruling is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id. 3 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that: 4 1. Upon reconsideration, the magistrate judge’s May 14, 2021 order, ECF No. 37, is AFFIRMED; and 6 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 38, is DENIED.

9 DATED: February 8, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez 10 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE