Green v. Solis

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CEDRIC EUGENE GREEN, Case No.: 18cv1804-CAB-BLM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING OBJECTION TO 13 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER [DOC. NO. 49] 14 R. SOLIS; J. WILBORN; J. MARTINEZ; S. RINK; J. CLAYTON; DR. S. BEYER, 15 Defendants. 16

17 Plaintiff Cedric Eugene Green is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 2, 2019, 19 Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to conduct 20 discovery prior to opposing summary judgment (“Magistrate Judge Order”). [Doc. No. 21 47.] On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge Order. 22 [Doc. No. 49.] 23 Magistrate judges’ rulings on nondispositive motions may be set aside or modified 24 by the district court only if found to be “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 25 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 26 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). 27 28 1 Plaintiff has not made any showing that the Magistrate Judge Order was “clearly 2 erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Jd. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has not 3 made the requisite showing of the need for such discovery under Federal Rule of Civil 4 || Procedure 56(d), because he has not specifically identified relevant information 5 demonstrating that his May 15, 2019 appeal DSH-S VSP-16000066 would prevent 6 ||summary judgment. [Doc. No. 47 at 3 (citations omitted).] In particular, Plaintiff 7 || presents no evidence that Defendant Solis was named in that appeal. In his objection, 8 || Plaintiff again presents no such evidence. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge Order is not 9 || “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law,” and the objection is DENIED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: October 28, 2019 € □ 12 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28