(PS) Davis v. CA Public Employee Retirement System

Opinion

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIENE D. DAVIS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01543-JAM-JDP Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO VACATE ORDER V. ECF No. 22 SYSTEM, et al., Defendant. Plaintiff requests that I vacate a previous order denying without prejudice plaintiffs motion for entry of a clerk’s judgment for a sum certain for failure to comply with Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff argues that the matter was not referred to a magistrate judge and magistrate judge jurisdiction does not apply. Id. To the contrary, the matter was referred under Local Rule 302(c)(19). The order at issue, ECF No. 21, is within magistrate judge jurisdiction; it is non-dispositive of a claim or defense of any party. See Flam vy. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, plaintiff's motion, ECF No. 22, is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. / Dated: _ December 8, 2020 Q——

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE