-JFM (PS) Leubner v. County of San Joaquin et al, No. 2:2008cv00853 - Document 176 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 171 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/14/20102. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and 167 Motion for Default Judgment are DENIED. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
-JFM (PS) Leubner v. County of San Joaquin et al Doc. 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MILOS LEUBNER, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 vs. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 17 No. 2:08-cv-0853 GEB JFM (PS) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). 18 On February 17, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections 20 to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 21 objections to the findings and recommendations. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 23 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 24 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 25 proper analysis. 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In addition to filing objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that 2 plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied, plaintiff has also filed objections to the 3 magistrate judge’s ruling on plaintiff’s discovery-related motions. The court construes these 4 objections as a request for reconsideration. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs district 5 judges to consider timely objections to a nondispositive pretrial order issued by a magistrate 6 judge and to “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to 7 law.” See also Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “‘A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ 8 when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left 9 with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Concrete Pipe and 10 Prods. v. Constr.Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (quoting United States v. 11 United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “[R]eview under the ‘clearly erroneous’ 12 standard is significantly deferential . . . .” Id. at 623. Upon review of the magistrate judge’s 13 order, the undersigned does not find clear error. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 17, 2012 are adopted in full; 16 2. Plaintiff’s January 20, 2012 motion for default judgment is denied; and 17 3. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 18 Dated: March 14, 2012 19 20 21 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.