Hearn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 William HEARN, Case No.: 22-cv-0255-AGS-DDL

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS

v. REGARDING APPOINTED

COUNSEL AND THIRD AMENDED

RJD WARDEN, et al.,

COMPLAINT (ECF 72)

Defendants. The magistrate judge denied plaintiff William Hearn’s third motion to appoint counsel and motion to file a third amended complaint. (ECF 63, 65.) Plaintiff objected. (ECF 72.) A district judge may “reconsider any pretrial matter” when “it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings,” Hedges v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994), so the magistrate judge’s denial was not contrary to law. And the clearly erroneous standard is very high: “the district court can overturn the magistrate judge’s ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a…