Dagdagan v. City of Vallejo et al
Filing
104
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 11/3/2011 ORDERING Pltf's 103 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
MARCARIO BELEN DAGDAGAN,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
13
CITY OF VALLEJO, VALLEJO OFFICER
JOHN BOYD (ID#589), VALLEJO
OFFICER J. WENTZ (ID#524), and
JAMES MELVILLE,
14
Defendants.
________________________________
12
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:08-cv-00922-GEB-KJN
ORDER*
15
16
Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s
17
October 11, 2011 Order, which denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions
18
without prejudice, holding “it would be more appropriate for plaintiff’s
19
motion to be heard by the trial judge . . . as a motion in limine
20
because the motion concerns the exclusion of testimony at trial.” (ECF
21
No. 95 3:5-7.) Defendants do not oppose the motion.
22
Pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 303(f) and Federal Rule of Civil
23
Procedure 72(a), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless
24
“clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire
25
file, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown the Magistrate
26
27
28
*
argument.
This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1
1
Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore,
2
Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.
3
Dated:
November 3, 2011
4
5
6
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
