Barry Lamon v. Tilton, et al

Filing 66

ORDER DENYING WITH PREJUDICE 53 Objection Construed as further Motion for Reconsideration and 47 Motion for TRO; Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 07/06/2009. (Martin, S)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
On June 30, 2009, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendations following the screening of P l a i n t i f f' s Third Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). (Doc. 65.)
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BARRY LAMON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN TILTON, et al., Defendants. /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00493-AWI-DLB PC ORDER DENYING WITH PREJUDICE OBJECTION CONSTRUED AS FURTHER MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Docs. 47, 53)

Plaintiff Barry Lamon ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief.1 (Docs. 41, 42.) On December 23, 2008, the undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied. (Doc. 44.) On January 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting re-argument of his motion, along with a further motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 45-47, 49 -51.) Plaintiff also filed an objection to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 48.) On February 19, 2009, the undersigned issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion for reargument construed as a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 52.) On March 12, 2009, the District Judge issued an order adopting the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff then filed an appeal of the District Judge's order, and on June 1, 2009, the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

the Court's order denying preliminary injunctive relief. (Docs. 63, 64.) Still pending on the Court's docket is Plaintiff's objection, filed March 4, 2009, to the undersigned's order denying Plaintiff's motion for re-argument. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiff's objection, which the Court construes as a further motion for reconsideration, is moot in light of the decision of the Ninth Circuit and therefore the motion is denied. Further, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objection/motion for reconsideration and finds that Plaintiff has set forth no grounds justifying reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60 (governing motions for reconsideration of final orders and judgments); Local Rule 78-230(k) (governing motions for reconsideration of orders resolving motions). Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection, construed as a further motion for reconsideration, is denied, with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a

July 6, 2009

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2