(PC) Calloway v. Naphcare Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY, No. 2:24-cv-02446-DJC-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER NAPHCARE INC., et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On October 2, 2024, Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney issued a screening order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order. (ECF No. 8.)

20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may object to a non- dispositive order issued by a Magistrate Judge within fourteen days of the order being served. Non-dispositive orders of a Magistrate Judge are subject to the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also L.R. 303(f). “A magistrate judge's decision is contrary to law if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider an element of an applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc., No. 17-cv-01515-KJM-AC, 2022 WL 28 4664179, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022) (cleaned up). A factual decision is clearly | erroneous when the court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake | has been committed.” Id. (internal citations and quotation makes omitted).

3 “[T]he dismissal of a complaint with leave to amend is a non-dispositive | matter.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). As such it is subject to || the above describe standard of review. The Magistrate Judge’s decision to dismiss | Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

7 | The Magistrate Judge screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and | found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim because Plaintiff failed to state how each | named defendant was involved in the violation of his rights beyond vague and | conclusory allegations and because Plaintiff had indicated he was refused treatment | for “not wearing state blue denim clothing” in the Complaint. (See ECF No. 7; see also | ECF No. 1 at 12.) This determination was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

13 The Court notes that Plaintiff appears partially concerned with the fact that his | case has been referred to a Magistrate Judge despite the fact that he “file[d] my | denial declining all magistrate judge service.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) While Plaintiff may | have elected to not consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, this does not prevent | matters from being referred to the Magistrate Judge. Under the Local Rules for the | District Court for the Eastern District of California, all cases involving pro se parties are | referred to the Magistrate Judge. See Local Rule 302(c)(21). A District Judge remains | assigned to those actions and issues dispositive orders, but the Magistrate to whom | the matter is referred issues non-dispositive orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

22 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. This | matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings.

95 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 | Dated: _ February 13, 2025 Donel J bnetto Hon. Daniel alabretta 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE