McCoy v. Kelso, et al.

Filing 112

ORDER denying 110 Motion for New Trial signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/6/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
STRONACH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv00983 AWI DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
(Document 110)

16

Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

17
18

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 19, 2012.

19
20
21
22

On April 22, 2015, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendants’
motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion. After Plaintiff filed objections and
Defendants filed their reply, the Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations on
September 1, 2015, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

23

On September 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “motion for a new trial” in which he contends

24
25
26

that his rights were violated because the Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations
without permitting him to “refute” Defendants’ reply.1

27
28

1

Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ reply on September 10, 2015.
1

1
2
3
4
5

Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. The Findings and Recommendations permit an
objection and reply. The Findings are then submitted to the District Court for review. A party is
not permitted to file a “response” to the reply.
To the extent Plaintiff disagrees with the merits of the underlying decision, he may
appeal the Court’s dismissal.

6
7
8

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion for New Trial” (Doc. 110) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: October 6, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2