Barber

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEENAN WILKINS, aka NERRAH No. 2:19-cv-1338 WBS KJN P

BROWN,

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration are before the court pursuant to the district court’s October 5, 2021 order. (ECF No. 203.) As discussed below, plaintiff’s motions should be denied. A. Legal Standard A magistrate judge’s ruling on non-dispositive matters, including motions to compel, must not be disturbed unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); E.D. Local Rule 303(f). The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to “factual determinations and discretionary decisions.” Nevis v. Rideout Memorial Hospital, No. 2:17-cv- 02295 JAM AC, 2019 WL 6310155 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2019). A finding is only clearly erroneous, when the district court is “left with a ‘definite and firm…