Lamon v. Adams et al

Filing 115

ORDER DENYING 113 Motion to Vacate Court Orders 111 and 112 Judgment; ORDERED that no further Motion for Reconsideration shall be filed, signed by District Judge David G. Campbell on 07/22/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Barry Louis Lamon,

10

No. 1:07-cv-00829-DGC
Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12

ORDER

Derral G. Adams; L. Zirkind; D. Hanson;
K. Elze; and J. Alvarez, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

In an order dated June 30, 2011, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of

17

Defendants.

Doc. 111.

The Clerk entered final judgment accordingly.

Doc. 112.

18

Plaintiff has filed a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal

19

Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 113. The motion will be denied.

20

It is appropriate to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) in four

21

circumstances: (1) newly discovered evidence has been presented, (2) the Court

22

committed clear error, (3) the judgment is manifestly unjust, or (4) there is an intervening

23

change in controlling law. See United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555

24

F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has shown none of these circumstances. Nor do

25

his “objections” (Doc. 114) to the Court’s decision warrant vacating the judgment.

26

IT IS ORDERED:

27

1.

28

Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion for the Court to vacate its order and judgment

(Doc. 113) is denied.

1
2

2.

No further motion for reconsideration shall be filed.

Dated this 22nd day of July, 2011.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‐ 2 ‐